Al-qadhf (slander) can be by zina (fornication/adultery) or otherwise. What indicates that the intended meaning is slandering them for zina are two things. The first is the mention of the chaste women following the mention of the fornicators. The second is the condition of four witnesses, because slandering someone for something other than zina is sufficient with two witnesses. Slandering for zina is when a free, sane, adult man says to a chaste woman: 'O fornicatress,' or to a chaste man: 'O fornicator,' 'O son of the fornicator,' 'O son of the fornicatress,' 'O child of zina,' 'You are not your father's,' 'You are not of sound mind.' Slandering for something other than zina is when one says: 'O usurer,' 'O wine drinker,' 'O Jew,' 'O Magian,' 'O immoral one,' 'O vile one,' 'O one who sucks his mother's nipple.' For this, there is ta'zir (discretionary punishment), and it does not reach the minimum punishment for slaves, which is forty lashes, rather it is less than that. Abu Yusuf said: It is permissible for it to reach seventy-nine. He said: The Imam may impose ta'zir up to one hundred. The conditions for the chaste person in slander are five: freedom, maturity, sanity, Islam, and chastity. It has been read: 'with four witnesses,' with tanween (indefinite article). 'Witnesses' is an adjective. If you ask: How do they witness, together or separately? I say: The obligation according to Abu Hanifa and his companions, may Allah be pleased with them, is that they must be present in one assembly. If they come separately, they are considered slanderers. According to al-Shafi'i, may Allah be pleased with him, it is permissible for them to be present separately. If you ask: Is it permissible for the husband of the slandered woman to be one of them? I say: It is permissible according to Abu Hanifa, contrary to al-Shafi'i. If you ask: How is the slanderer punished? I say: As the fornicator is punished, except that he is not stripped of his clothing except for what is stripped from a woman, such as padding and fur. The slanderer is also like the fornicator, and the harshest punishment is ta'zir, then the punishment for zina, then the punishment for drinking wine, then the punishment for the slanderer. They said: Because the reason for his punishment is susceptible to truth and falsehood, yet he is punished to protect honor and deter from violating it. If you ask: What if the slandered person is not chaste? I say: The slanderer is punished with ta'zir and is not subjected to a fixed punishment, unless the slandered person is known for what he was slandered for, in which case there is no fixed punishment or ta'zir. The rejection of the slanderer's testimony is conditional according to Abu Hanifa, may Allah be pleased with him, on the fulfillment of the fixed punishment. If he testifies before the punishment or before its completion, his testimony is accepted. If the punishment is fulfilled, his testimony is never accepted, even if he repents and is among the righteous and pious. According to al-Shafi'i, may Allah be pleased with him, the rejection of his testimony is related to the act of slander itself. If he repents from the slander by retracting it, his testimony becomes acceptable again. Both rely on the verse. Abu Hanifa, may Allah be pleased with him, made the penalty for the condition, which is the act of slander: flogging, and the rejection of testimony follows the flogging as a consequence. Thus, they are rejected in their testimony for their entire lives according to him. He considered the statement: 'And they are the immoral ones' as a separate statement, not included in the penalty for the condition, as if it is a narration of the state of the slanderers before Allah after the conditional statement has ended.

And except for those who repent, it is an exception from the disobedient. This is indicated by His saying: 'Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.' Al-Shafi'i, may Allah be pleased with him, made the reward of the condition the two sentences as well. However, he limited the duration of being a slanderer to the time until he repents and returns from slander, and he made the exception related to the second sentence. The rightful status of the exception in his view is to be in the genitive case as a substitute for 'them' in 'for them,' while in the view of Abu Hanifa, may Allah be pleased with him, it should be in the accusative case because it is based on a cause. What the apparent meaning of the verse and its structure imply is that the three sentences together are the reward of the condition, as if it were said: 'And whoever slanders chaste women, then punish them and reject their testimony and declare them disobedient,' meaning: 'Then gather for them punishment, rejection, and disobedience, except for those who repent from slander and rectify, for indeed Allah forgives them, so they will return not punished, nor rejected, nor disobedient.' If you say: 'The disbeliever slanders and then repents from disbelief, and his testimony is accepted by consensus, while the slanderer from among the Muslims repents from slander, yet his testimony is not accepted according to Abu Hanifa, may Allah be pleased with him. Is it as if slander with disbelief is easier than slander with Islam?' I say: Muslims do not care about insulting disbelievers, because they have declared enmity and slandered them falsely. Thus, the one slandered does not suffer the disgrace and shame from the slander of a disbeliever as he does from the slander of a Muslim like himself. Therefore, he has made the punishment for the slanderer from among the Muslims stricter to deter and prevent the infliction of disgrace. If you say: 'Is it permissible for the one slandered or for the imam to pardon the punishment of the slanderer?' I say: Both of them have that right before the witnesses testify and the punishment is established. The one slandered is encouraged not to bring the slanderer to court or demand the punishment from him. It is good for the imam to encourage the one slandered to restrain his anger and say to him: 'Turn away from this and leave it for the sake of Allah before the punishment is established.' Once it is established, neither of them has the right to pardon because it is a pure right of Allah, and for this reason, it is not valid to settle it for money. If you say: 'Is the punishment inherited?' I say: According to Abu Hanifa, may Allah be pleased with him, it is not inherited, due to his saying, blessings and peace be upon him: 'The punishment is not inherited.' And according to Al-Shafi'i, may Allah be pleased with him, it is inherited. If the slanderer repents before the punishment is established, it is lifted. It is said that this verse was revealed regarding Hassan ibn Thabit, may Allah be pleased with him, when he repented from what he said about Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her.