then the hadd is obligatory upon him. The reasoning for this is that he explained his statement in a way that does not necessitate the hadd, so no hadd is obligatory upon him, just as if he had explained it connected to his statement. A third report is narrated from Ahmad, which is that if he was in a state of anger, he said: He is worthy of having the hadd applied to him; because the context of anger indicates the intention of slander, unlike the state of satisfaction. The correct view in the school is the first report, because this word is not understood to mean anything other than slander by the act of the people of Lot, so it was explicit regarding it, like his saying: "O fornicator (zani)." And because there is no one left from the people of Lot, it cannot be interpreted that he is being attributed to them.

Section: And if he says: "I intended that you are upon the religion of Lot," or "that you love young boys," or "you kiss them," or "you look at them," or "that you behave with the morals of the people of Lot in their social gatherings, without committing the abomination," or "that you forbid the abomination as Lot forbade it," or something similar, two viewpoints are derived in all of this, based on the two reports explicitly stated in the issue; because this is in its meaning.

1569 - Issue; he said: (And likewise the one who says: "O ma'fuj")

The explicitly stated view from Ahmad regarding the one who says: "O ma'fuj," is that the hadd is upon him. Al-Khiraqi’s statement implies that one should refer back to his explanation; if he explains it by something other than the abomination, such as saying: "I meant 'O paralyzed one' (mafluj) or 'O injured one' (musaban) other than the private part," and the like, then there is no hadd upon him; because he explained it with that which has no hadd. And if he explains it with the act of the people of Lot, then the hadd is upon him, as if he had stated it explicitly. The reasoning for the two statements is what has preceded in the one before it.

Section: And al-Khiraqi’s statement implies that the hadd is not obligatory upon the slanderer except with an explicit expression that does not admit of anything other than slander, which is that he says: "O fornicator (zani)," or utters the literal word for intercourse. As for other expressions, one refers back to his explanation regarding them, due to what we have mentioned in these two issues. So if