'In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful' His saying, the Exalted and Majestic: "And those who accuse chaste women and do not bring four witnesses, flog them with eighty lashes and do not accept from them testimony forever. They are indeed the disobedient." "Except for those who repent after that and reform, for indeed Allah is Forgiving and Merciful." This verse was revealed concerning the accusers. Said Ibn Jubair said: The reason for it was what was said about Aisha, the Mother of the Believers, may Allah be pleased with her. It is said: Rather, it was revealed concerning accusations in general, not in that incident. Allah, the Exalted, mentioned in the verse the accusation of women, as it is more significant. Accusing them of immorality is more heinous and more harmful to souls. The accusation of men falls under the ruling of the verse in meaning and by the consensus of the Ummah on that. This is similar to His explicit statement regarding the flesh of the pig and the inclusion of its fat and its entrails, and so on, in meaning and by consensus. Al-Zahrawi narrated that the meaning is: the chaste souls, so it encompasses both men and women in its wording. This is supported by His saying: "And chaste women among the women" [An-Nisa: 24]. The majority hold that the 's' in 'المُحْصَناتِ' (the chaste) is pronounced open, while Yahya ibn Thawbah pronounced it broken. 'المُحْصَناتُ' refers to the chaste in this context; this is what necessitates the flogging of the accuser. Chastity is the highest meaning of honor, and within it is Islam. In this incident, it is freedom. This is reflected in the words of Hassan: (p-340) A chaste woman, composed... And from His saying, the Exalted: "And she who guarded her private part" [Al-Anbiya: 91]. Allah, the Exalted, mentioned from the attributes of women that are contrary to being accused of adultery, and to exclude from that those who have been proven to commit adultery and others who have not reached the act of intercourse according to the differing opinions on that. He expressed accusation by 'throwing' as it is customary that throwing is harmful like throwing with a stone or an arrow. Since the words of the accuser are harmful, it was made like throwing. This is as he said: ... And the wound of the tongue is like the wound of the hand. Accusation and throwing are one meaning.

And Allah, the Most High, has made it strict upon the accuser to have four witnesses, as a mercy to His servants and a concealment for them. The majority of the people read: "with four witnesses" by attributing the four to the witnesses. Abdullah ibn Muslim ibn [UNTRANSLATED-LATIN: yasaar], and Abu Zar'ah ibn Jarir read: "with four" with tanween, and "witnesses" in this either as a substitute or as a description for the four, or as an adverbial phrase or as a specification. In these two there is consideration; as the adverbial phrase is from an indefinite noun and the specification is collective. Sibawayh sees that the tanween of the number and the omission of its attribution is only permissible in poetry. Abu al-Fath has improved this reading and preferred it over the reading of the majority. The ruling on the testimony of the four is that it must be based on direct observation, like the rod and the kohl in one place. If one of them contradicts, the three and the accuser are punished, as Umar ibn al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, did regarding the matter of al-Mughira ibn Shu'ba. This is because Abu Bakrah Nufay' ibn al-Harith and his brother Nafi' testified against him for adultery - and al-Zahrawi said: Abdullah ibn al-Harith - and Ziyad, their brother from their mother - and he is the one who is related to Muawiya - and Shibl ibn Ma'bad al-Jabali. When they came to give testimony, Ziyad hesitated and did not give it completely, so Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, punished the three mentioned.

And the punishment is striking, and the argument is the striking in the skins or with the skins. Then the term punishment was borrowed for other things like the sword and others. From it is the saying of Qays ibn al-Khatim:

I will strike them on the day of the garden, bare-headed, As if my hands with the sword are the sticks of a player.

And "eighty" was established on the source, and "punishment" on the specification. Then Allah, Blessed and Exalted, commanded that we should never accept testimony from the limited accusers, and this implies the duration of their lives. Then He ruled against them that they are corrupt, meaning they are outside the obedience of Allah, the Mighty and Majestic.

Then Allah, glorified and exalted is He, made an exception for whoever repents and reforms after the accusation. Indeed, He promised them mercy and forgiveness. The verse contains three rulings regarding the accuser: his flogging, the rejection of his testimony forever, and his corruption. The exception does not affect his flogging by consensus, and it does affect his corruption by consensus. The people differed regarding its effect on the rejection of his testimony. Shuraih the judge, Ibrahim al-Nakha'i, al-Hasan, al-Thawri, and Abu Hanifah said: the exception does not affect the rejection of his testimony. Rather, his corruption before Allah, the Most High, is removed. As for the testimony of the accuser, it is never accepted, even if he repents and denies his accusation, nor in any circumstance. The majority of the people said: the exception does affect the rejection of the testimony. If the accuser repents, his testimony is accepted. Then they differed regarding the form of his repentance. The view of Umar ibn al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, al-Shabi, and others is that his repentance can only be by denying himself in that accusation for which he was punished. Thus, Shibl ibn Ma'bad and Nafi' repented from speaking about al-Mughira and they denied themselves, so Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, accepted their testimony. But Abu Bakrah Nufay' refused to deny himself, so Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, rejected his testimony until he died. A group among them, including Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, and others said: his repentance is that he reforms and his condition improves, even if he does not return to his words by denial.

The Maliki jurists also differed on when the testimony of the accuser is annulled. Ibn al-Majshun said: by his very accusation. Ibn al-Qasim, al-Ashhab, and Sahnun said: it is not annulled until he is flogged. If he is prevented from his flogging (whether by pardon or otherwise), his testimony is not rejected. Sheikh Abu al-Hasan al-Lakhmi said: his testimony during the period of the term for proof is suspended. He preferred the opinion that repentance is either by denial in the accusation or else what return is there for a just person if he accused, was punished, and remained just? And "they repented" means: they returned.

Judge Abu Muhammad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: This is a preference, and al-Tabari and others preferred the opinion of Malik.

They also differed on the permissibility of his testimony after repentance. In what matters is his testimony permissible? Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, said: It is permissible in everything generally, and likewise for anyone who was punished in any matter. Sahnun, may Allah have mercy on him, said: Whoever was punished in any matter, his testimony is not permissible in the like of what he was punished for.

Muttarif and Ibn al-Majshun said: Whoever was punished for accusation or adultery, his testimony is not permissible in any of the aspects of adultery, nor in accusation, nor in li'an, even if he is just. They narrated this saying from Malik, and they agreed - as far as I remember - that the child of adultery cannot testify in adultery.