What is the ruling regarding allusive defamation (Ta'reedh bi al-Qadhf), such as stating 'You are not an adulterer' or 'My mother is not an adulteress'?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Ḥudūd (Prescribed Penalties)
Primary text
There is a recorded difference in opinion attributed to Ahmad regarding allusive defamation. One narration from Hanbal, which is the apparent view of Al-Khiraqi and the choice of Abu Bakr, states that no Hadd punishment is applicable for such ambiguous statements. This view is held by 'Ata', 'Amr ibn Dinar, Qatadah, Al-Thawri, Al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr, the As'hab al-Ra'y, and Ibn al-Mundhir. The evidence cited is that a man once alluded to the Prophet, peace be upon him, regarding his wife bearing a black child, and the Prophet did not impose any punishment upon him. Furthermore, Allah differentiated between explicit and allusive proposals of marriage, permitting the latter in 'Iddah while prohibiting the former, indicating a similar distinction applies to defamation. Also, any statement carrying two possible meanings, such as 'O Fasiq' (O transgressor), does not constitute defamation.
Supporting text
Another narration from Al-Athram and others concerning Ahmad states that the Hadd punishment is obligatory. This is also related from 'Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, and held by Ishaq. The evidence provided is that 'Umar flogged a man who stated to his companion, 'I am not an adulterer, nor is my mother an adulteress,' ruling that he alluded to his companion despite the apparent praise of his parents. Mu'ammar also stated that 'Umar used to impose the Hadd for allusions. Furthermore, 'Uthman flogged a man who said to another, 'O Ibn Shammat al-Wadhar' (alluding to the mother's adultery via a reference to the flesh/penis). The justification is that an allusion accompanied by a contextual clue (Qarinah) pointing to the defamatory meaning is treated like an explicit statement that admits no other meaning, similar to how divorce can occur through allusion. However, if such an allusion occurs outside of a dispute and lacks a contextual clue pointing to defamation, it is undoubtedly not defamation. Abu Bakr 'Abd al-Aziz mentioned that Abu 'Abdullah (Ahmad) later retracted the view regarding the obligation of the Hadd punishment for allusions.