not binding upon him, just as if she had said: 'You have spoken the truth.' And if he says: 'You are a female adulteress,' and she replies: 'You are more of an adulterer than I am,' Abu Bakr said: She is like the one before her in the dropping of the hadd from him. But the hadd of slander is binding upon her toward him here, unlike the one before it, because she attributed adultery to him, whereas in the previous one she attributed it to herself.

1570 - Issue: He said: (And whoever slanders a man, and the hadd is not carried out until the slandered person commits adultery, the hadd for the slanderer does not cease.)

This is the position of al-Thawri, Abu Thawr, al-Muzani, and Dawud. Abu Hanifa, Malik, and al-Shafi'i said: The hadd is not upon him, because the conditions must persist until the moment of carrying out the hadd. This is evidenced by the fact that if he apostatizes or becomes insane, the hadd is not carried out. Furthermore, the occurrence of adultery on his part reinforces the word of the slanderer and indicates that this act preceded the accusation, thus resembling testimony when corruption (fisq) occurs after its performance but before judgment is passed upon it. Our evidence is that the hadd has already become mandatory and is completed by its conditions; therefore, it does not lapse by the cessation of a condition of obligatoriness, just as if one committed adultery with a slave-girl and then purchased her, or stole an item and its value decreased or he came to own it, or as if the slandered person became insane after the claim was made. Their statement that the conditions must be sustained is incorrect, because the conditions are for the obligatoriness, so their presence is only required until the moment of obligatoriness, and the hadd has already become obligatory, evidenced by his right to demand it. It is invalidated by the principles upon which we have made analogy. As for when the one to whom the hadd is due becomes insane, the hadd does not lapse, but its execution is delayed due to the impossibility of demanding it; it is similar to if the person to whom the hadd is due is absent. If the one to whom the hadd is due apostatizes, he does not possess the right to demand it, because his rights and possessions cease or are suspended. It differs from testimony, for probity is a condition for judgment through it, so its presence is considered until the time of judgment, unlike our issue, for chastity is a condition for obligatoriness, so it is not considered except until the time of obligatoriness.