Imposition or Remission of the Hadd Punishment for Adultery (Zina) Committed by a Culpable Ignorant Person Aware of Their Ignorance: Two Conflicting Interpretations of a Hadith

Hasani, Mohammad Hasan; Shirvani, Khadije

doi:10.30497/sj.2026.248778.1498

Imposition or Remission of the Hadd Punishment for Adultery (Zina) Committed by a Culpable Ignorant Person Aware of Their Ignorance: Two Conflicting Interpretations of a Hadith

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Mohammad Hasan Hasani ¹

Khadije Shirvani ²

¹ Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Faculty of Humanities, University of Damghan, Damghan, Iran. (Corresponding Author).

² Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Faculty of Humanities, University of Damghan, Damghan, Iran

10.30497/sj.2026.248778.1498

Abstract

1. Introduction and Objective
The enforcement of the prescribed statutory penalty for unlawful sexual intercourse depends on the perpetrator’s knowledge of its religious prohibition. Jurists unanimously agree on the waiver of this prescribed penalty for both the blameless ignorant individual and the inattentive culpably ignorant individual; however, there is disagreement regarding its waiver for the attentive culpably ignorant individual. This disagreement arises from two distinct interpretations of the phrase “the proof is conclusive against her” in the sound narrative of Yazid al-Kunasi. In clarifying the prescribed penalty for a woman who marries during her widowhood waiting period, and in response to the question of what applies if she knows she must observe a waiting period but is ignorant of its duration, the Imam stated: “The proof is conclusive against her; she ought to have inquired to inform herself.” The first interpretation affirms the prescribed penalty, whereas the second establishes its waiver for the attentive culpably ignorant individual. Accordingly, this study aims to evaluate and identify the correct interpretation.
2. Methods and Materials
This study adopts a descriptive–analytical method, utilizing library research and an examination of relevant jurisprudential opinions.
3. Research Findings
The attentive culpably ignorant individual is legally either excused or unexcused. The governing presumption in prescribed divine penalties is innocence, leniency, and the dismissal of statutory punishments upon the slightest doubt. The minimum definitive implication of the phrase “the proof is conclusive” merely establishes sinful culpability and the permissibility of discretionary punishment for the unexcused attentive culpably ignorant individual.
4. Discussion and Conclusion
Based on the research findings, the second interpretation of the phrase “the proof is conclusive against her” in the sound narrative of Yazid al-Kunasi—affirming the waiver of the prescribed penalty and allowing discretionary punishment for the attentive culpably ignorant individual, conditional upon the presence of procedural principles indicating prohibition, and otherwise granting full exemption from both prescribed and discretionary punishments—is closer to the overarching legislative intent.

Keywords

Non-culpable Ignorant

Culpable Ignorant

Doubt regarding Adultery (Zina)

Remission of Hudud

The Sahiha of Yazid al-Kinasi