...while he was a polytheist, no attention shall be paid to his statement, and the slanderer shall be subjected to the hadd, if the slandered person requests it. Likewise, one who was a slave.

This is only the case because he slandered him while he was a Muslim and chaste (muhsan), and that necessitates the obligation of the hadd upon him due to the generality of the verse and the existence of the [legal] basis. Therefore, if he claims what would cause the hadd to lapse for him, it is not accepted from him, just as if he slandered an adult, and then said: 'I intended that he committed zina while he was a minor.' As for if he said to him: 'You committed zina in your state of shirk (polytheism),' then there is no hadd upon him. This is the opinion of al-Zuhri, Abu Thawr, and the people of ra'y (the Hanafi school). Abu al-Khattab narrated another narration from Ahmad, and from Malik that he is subjected to the hadd, which is also the opinion of al-Thawri, because the act of slander took place while he was chaste. Our evidence is that he ascribed the slander to a deficient state, which is similar to if he had slandered him during the state of shirk, and because he slandered him with that which does not necessitate a hadd upon the slandered person, so it is similar to if he slandered him with intercourse other than [that involving] the private part. Such is the ruling if he slandered one who was a slave, and said: 'You committed zina while you were a slave,' or said: 'You committed zina while you were a child.' If he said: 'You committed zina while you were a boy or a minor,' he is asked about the minor status; if he defines it as a minority that does not allow for intercourse, then it is like the one before it, but if he defines it as a minority that allows for intercourse, then the hadd is due upon him, according to one of the two narrations. And if he said: 'You committed zina while you were a polytheist,' or: 'While you were a slave,' and the slandered person said: 'I was neither a polytheist nor a slave,' we examine the matter: if it is proven that he was a polytheist or a slave, it is like the one before it; if it is proven that he was not so, the hadd is mandatory upon the slanderer; and if neither is proven, there are two narrations: one of them is that the hadd is mandatory because the original state is the absence of shirk and slavery, and because the original state is freedom and the Islam of the people of the Dar al-Islam. The second is that the word is the word of the slanderer, because the original state is the freedom of his liability. If he said: 'You committed zina while you were a polytheist,' and the slandered person said: 'You intended to slander me with zina and shirk together,' and the slanderer said: 'Rather, I intended to slander you with zina [while you were a polytheist].'