We request details on the issue of the hadd punishment for an unmarried fornicator?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
Abu Malik: Our Shaykh, an interjection regarding the question, the first part.
The Shaykh: Yes.
Abu Malik: We know that it also came in the Sunnah that one is to be flogged one hundred times and exiled for a year. So, may Allah reward you with good, if you would clarify the full ruling in this matter for us?
The Shaykh : This is if the man committed fornication while being muhsan (married). There are two rulings here. One is a mandatory order that the Muslim ruler must implement, which is stoning. But if the Muslim ruler sees that... excuse me, if the fornicator is not muhsan.
Abu Malik: A married man.
The Shaykh : A married man.
Abu Malik: I mean an unmarried man, excuse me.
The Shaykh : An unmarried man who is not muhsan. In this case, he is to be flogged. This flogging is mandatory, unlike the stoning I mentioned earlier.
Abu Malik: ...
The Shaykh : There was an error in my earlier wording. For the one who is not muhsan and has not yet married, there are two rulings. One is mandatory, which is the flogging. The other ruling is that if the Muslim ruler sees, under certain circumstances or regarding certain individuals, that it is necessary to exile him to remove him from the area where he committed the sin, then he exiles him and banishes him from his town. However, this is not a mandatory order for the ruler; rather, it depends on the public benefit (maslahah) that he sees will be achieved by his exile or not. This ruling is like the ruling regarding the killing of a habitual drunkard if he drinks four times. Each time he is flogged, but he does not desist or reform from his addiction to drinking. If the Muslim ruler sees a public benefit in killing him on the fourth time, he has the right to do so. This is not a consistent, universal ruling. Therefore, it should not be a problem for anyone that it is not narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) implemented this ruling on a drunkard on the fourth occasion, meaning he did not kill him. This is because this killing is not like establishing the hadd, which is the flogging. That depends on the ijtihad (independent legal reasoning) of the ruler. If he sees it, he implements it; otherwise, the consistent rule is the flogging, and nothing beyond that. If he sees a public benefit in killing him on the fourth time, he does so based on an authentic hadith with multiple chains of transmission. This resolves the difficulty that may arise for some students when they see that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) flogged a drunkard but did not kill him. This is for two reasons. The first is that in the time of the Messenger (peace be upon him), there was not such extensive addiction where one would be flogged, then return, then be flogged again, like this, four times. The second is that even if we assume there was a drunkard who drank four times and was flogged each time, and the Messenger (peace be upon him) did not kill him, that is to clarify that killing is not like the hadd, which is a necessary matter. Rather, it depends on the opinion of the Muslim ruler.
The Shaykh: Yes.
Abu Malik: We know that it also came in the Sunnah that one is to be flogged one hundred times and exiled for a year. So, may Allah reward you with good, if you would clarify the full ruling in this matter for us?
The Shaykh : This is if the man committed fornication while being muhsan (married). There are two rulings here. One is a mandatory order that the Muslim ruler must implement, which is stoning. But if the Muslim ruler sees that... excuse me, if the fornicator is not muhsan.
Abu Malik: A married man.
The Shaykh : A married man.
Abu Malik: I mean an unmarried man, excuse me.
The Shaykh : An unmarried man who is not muhsan. In this case, he is to be flogged. This flogging is mandatory, unlike the stoning I mentioned earlier.
Abu Malik: ...
The Shaykh : There was an error in my earlier wording. For the one who is not muhsan and has not yet married, there are two rulings. One is mandatory, which is the flogging. The other ruling is that if the Muslim ruler sees, under certain circumstances or regarding certain individuals, that it is necessary to exile him to remove him from the area where he committed the sin, then he exiles him and banishes him from his town. However, this is not a mandatory order for the ruler; rather, it depends on the public benefit (maslahah) that he sees will be achieved by his exile or not. This ruling is like the ruling regarding the killing of a habitual drunkard if he drinks four times. Each time he is flogged, but he does not desist or reform from his addiction to drinking. If the Muslim ruler sees a public benefit in killing him on the fourth time, he has the right to do so. This is not a consistent, universal ruling. Therefore, it should not be a problem for anyone that it is not narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) implemented this ruling on a drunkard on the fourth occasion, meaning he did not kill him. This is because this killing is not like establishing the hadd, which is the flogging. That depends on the ijtihad (independent legal reasoning) of the ruler. If he sees it, he implements it; otherwise, the consistent rule is the flogging, and nothing beyond that. If he sees a public benefit in killing him on the fourth time, he does so based on an authentic hadith with multiple chains of transmission. This resolves the difficulty that may arise for some students when they see that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) flogged a drunkard but did not kill him. This is for two reasons. The first is that in the time of the Messenger (peace be upon him), there was not such extensive addiction where one would be flogged, then return, then be flogged again, like this, four times. The second is that even if we assume there was a drunkard who drank four times and was flogged each time, and the Messenger (peace be upon him) did not kill him, that is to clarify that killing is not like the hadd, which is a necessary matter. Rather, it depends on the opinion of the Muslim ruler.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.