And the qawwad (pimp), according to the common people, is the broker in zina. Slandering with all of these necessitates ta'zir, because it is slander with that which does not necessitate the hadd.

Section: If a man disavows another from his father, the hadd is upon him. Ahmad stipulated this. Likewise, if he disavows him from his tribe. Ibrahim al-Nakha'i and Ishaq held this view. Abu Hanifah, al-Thawri, and Hammad also held this view, provided he disavows him from his father and his mother was a Muslim; but if she were a dhimmi or a slave, there is no hadd upon him, because the slander is against her. The reasoning for the first [position] is what al-Ash'ath ibn Qays narrated from the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, that he used to say: "I will not be brought a man who says that Kinana is not from Quraysh, except that I will lash him." From Ibn Mas'ud, it is reported that he said: There is no lashing except for two things: a man who slanders a chaste woman, or one who disavows a man from his father, and he would not say this except as an authoritative report (tawqifan). As for if he disavows him from his mother, there is no hadd upon him, because he has not slandered anyone with zina. Likewise, if he says: "If you do not do such-and-such, you are not the son of so-and-so," there is no hadd for it, because slander does not depend on a condition. Analogy dictates that the hadd is not required for disavowing a man from his tribe, and because this does not specifically mean an accusation of zina, so it is similar to if one said to a non-Arab: "You are an Arab." If one said to an Arab: "You are a Nabati," or "a Persian," there is no hadd for it, and upon him is ta'zir. This was stipulated; because it is possible that you are a Nabati in tongue or nature. It is narrated from Ahmad, in another report, that the hadd is upon him, just as if he disavowed him from his father. The first is more correct. Malik and al-Shafi'i held this view, because it carries the possibility of meaning something other than slander, so it does not exclusively point to it. Whenever he interprets any of these as slander, then he is a slanderer.

Section: If one man slanders another, and another says: "You have spoken the truth," then the one who confirmed is also a slanderer,