To what extent is it true that Abu Hanifa holds the view that there is no hadd punishment for a woman who rents herself out for fornication, nor for the fornicator, and to what extent is the narration sound regarding Umar ibn Al-Khattab’s waiving the hadd punishment for a woman who committed fornication due to hunger after a shepherd gave her three handfuls of dates?

The jurists differed on the ruling concerning sexual intercourse with a woman hired for zina (fornication/adultery). Imam Abu Hanifa was of the opinion that the hadd (prescribed punishment) is not obligatory due to the شبهة المهر (shubhat al-mahr - شبهة, a semblance of a dowry or a contractual ambiguity). In contrast, his two companions, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad, along with the majority of scholars, held the view that the hadd is obligatory because hiring is not a means to legitimize sexual relations. They consider the contract invalid, and the subject of hiring is services, not physical entities. Everyone agreed on the prohibition of the act; the disagreement is only regarding the averting of the hadd due to the semblance of a dowry. As for the narration concerning Omar ibn Al-Khattab averting the hadd from a woman who committed zina with a shepherd due to her necessity, there is a dispute regarding its authenticity. It is probable that it was due to extreme necessity, resembling the suspension of the hadd for theft during the Year of the Ash.