regarding the slander of al-Mughira, he repeated his slander, and they did not see a second hadd for him. Al-Athram narrated with his chain of authority from Zabiyan ibn 'Umara, who said: Three people testified against al-Mughira ibn Shu'ba that he was an adulterer. This reached 'Umar, and it weighed heavily upon him. He said: 'Three-quarters of al-Mughira ibn Shu'ba have been ruined.' Ziyad arrived, and he asked: 'What do you have?' It was not proven, so he ordered them to be lashed and said: 'False witnesses.' Abu Bakra said: 'Are you not satisfied that if a just man came to you and testified, you would stone him?' He replied: 'Yes, by the One in Whose hand is my soul.' Abu Bakra said: 'Then I testify that he is an adulterer.' He wanted to repeat the lashing upon him, but 'Ali said: 'O Commander of the Faithful, if you repeat the lashing upon him, you have made stoning mandatory for him.' In another narration: 'A lashing is not repeated twice for a single slander.' Al-Athram said: 'I said to Abu 'Abd Allah regarding 'Ali's statement: "If you lash him, you have stoned your companion?" He said: "It is as if he made his testimony equal to that of two men." Abu 'Abd Allah said: "I used to interpret it this way until I saw it in the hadith, and it pleased me." Then he said: "He means: if you lash him a second time, it is as if you have made him another witness." As for if he was punished for him (the slander) and then slanders him with a second act of adultery, you must consider: if he slanders him after a long interval, then there is a second hadd, because the sanctity of the slandered person never lapses with respect to the slanderer such that he is empowered to slander him in every case. If he slanders him immediately after his hadd, there are two narrations: one is that he is also punished, because this is a slander whose falsehood has not been manifested by a hadd, so a hadd is required for it, just as if the interval had been long. This is also because whenever other grounds for a hadd are repeated after one has been punished for the first, the ruling for the second is established, such as with adultery, theft, and other causes. The second narration is that he is not punished because he has already been punished for it once, so he is not to be punished for the slander immediately following it, just as if he had slandered him regarding the first act of adultery.

Section: If he says: "Whoever slanders me is the son of an adulteress," and a man slanders him, there is no hadd for him according to any of the scholars. Likewise, if two men differ over something and one of them says: "The liar is the son of an adulteress," there is no hadd for him. Ahmad explicitly stated this because he did not designate anyone specifically with the slander, and the same applies to similar cases. If he slanders a group for whom it is inconceivable that his slander could be true, such as if he slanders all the people of a large town with adultery, there is no hadd upon him because he has not cast shame upon anyone other than himself, due to the knowledge of his falsehood.

Section: If he makes a claim against a man that he slandered him, and the man denies it, he is not to be made to swear an oath. This is the view of al-Sha'bi, Hammad, al-Thawri, and the Ahl al-Ra'y (the Rationalists). It is reported from Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, that he is made to swear an oath; Ibn al-Mundhir recorded this, and it is the opinion of al-Zuhri, Malik, al-Shafi'i, Ishaq, Abu Thawr, and Ibn al-Mundhir, based on the statement of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace): "But the oath is upon the defendant." Furthermore, it is a human right, so an oath is required, as with a debt. The reasoning for the first position is that it is a hadd, so no oath is required, just as with adultery and theft. If he refuses to take the oath, the hadd is not carried out upon him, because the hadd is averted by ambiguities, so a verdict is not passed based on the refusal, as with all other hadd punishments.

1577 - Issue: He said: (And whoever kills or commits a hadd offense outside the Haram, then takes refuge in the Haram, is not to be transacted with or associated with until he leaves the Haram, at which point the hadd is carried out upon him).

The general principle is that whoever commits a crime necessitating death outside the Haram and then takes refuge within it, the penalty is not to be exacted upon him there. This is the opinion of Ibn 'Abbas, 'Ata', 'Ubayd ibn 'Umayr, al-Zuhri, Mujahid, Ishaq, al-Sha'bi, Abu Hanifa, and his companions. As for other than killing among all hadd punishments and qisas (retaliation) for anything less than life, there are two narrations from Ahmad: one is that it is not to be exacted from one who has taken refuge in the Haram. The second is that it is to be exacted. This is the school of Abu Hanifa because what is narrated from the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) is a prohibition of killing, through his saying (peace be upon him): "No blood is to be shed in it." And the sanctity...