Is it true what was reported about Abu Hanifa al-Nu'man ibn Thabit that he held the view of the waiving of the prescribed punishment (hadd) and the establishment of lineage (nasab) in cases of sexual intercourse with one's mother, sister, or daughter through marriage, despite knowing its prohibition, and in cases of sexual intercourse with a rented woman?

The question involved two issues: First issue: The ruling on someone who contracts a marriage with a woman unlawful for him to marry and then has intercourse with her – is he to be punished with hadd? Abu Hanifa held that he is not subject to hadd, but rather to ta'zir (discretionary punishment) if he knew of the prohibition. This is because the marriage contract creates a semblance of doubt (shubha (definition)), even if its prohibition is agreed upon. Abu Yusuf, Muhammad, and Al-Shafi'i disagreed, holding that he must be punished with hadd if he knew of the prohibition, because it is a contract that did not apply to its proper subject. The fatwa (definition) among the Hanafis is in accordance with the view of the two companions (Abu Yusuf and Muhammad) regarding the obligation of hadd.

Second issue: The ruling on having intercourse with a rented slave girl. The Hanafis agreed on the obligation of hadd for anyone who has intercourse with a rented slave girl, and the rental contract is not considered a shubha that averts the hadd. The paternity of the child follows the hadd; if hadd is not obligatory due to shubha, the child’s paternity is established. Such jurisprudential issues are subject to ijtihad (definition).