Do common slanderous words, such as "so-and-so is a loose cannon" or "a woman whose reputation is spread far and wide and acts without restraint," necessitate the prescribed punishment (حد) if a person utters them in a moment of anger, intending to insult rather than explicitly accuse of adultery?

Scholars have divided the wordings of qadhf (slanderous accusation) into three categories: explicit, allusive, and indirect.

- Explicit: This is the wording that directly intends qadhf and cannot be interpreted otherwise. It necessitates the prescribed punishment (hadd) by scholarly consensus. - Allusive (kinayah): This is wording from which the possibility of qadhf is understood by its very nature. Scholars differ on whether it necessitates the hadd punishment. Some require the hadd while accepting the accuser's denial under oath (in which case they are subject to ta'zeer, discretionary punishment). Others do not require the hadd but rather ta'zeer. - Indirect (ta'reedh): This is wording from which qadhf is understood, but not by its direct nature. Scholars also differ on this. Some hold that it does not incur the hadd but only ta'zeer. Others believe that the hadd is obligatory if qadhf is understood from contextual clues (with the exception of a father who makes an indirect accusation against his child). Still others maintain that indirect accusation is not considered qadhf, even if intended.

The wordings mentioned in the question may fall under the category of allusive (kinayat). If the speaker did not intend to accuse of zina (fornication/adultery) but merely to insult, then there is no hadd punishment for them, but they should be disciplined with ta'zeer.