If a woman causes a miscarriage, is the hadd (fixed punishment) carried out against her?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : May Allah reward you. If a man claims a child as his own, do we carry out the hadd for zina (unlawful sexual intercourse) against him?
The Shaykh : No.
The questioner : Why?
The Shaykh : Because zina requires a confession four times, and if he confesses, he must remain until the hadd is completed against him.
The questioner : But his claiming the child...?
The Shaykh : It is not obligatory, and no one has made it obligatory. The scholars differed on the case of a woman who becomes pregnant while having no husband and no master, and she does not claim coercion. They said: The hadd is not carried out against such a woman. If we see this woman becoming pregnant and giving birth to a child every year, we say, "May Allah bless her," we perform the 'aqiqah (sacrifice for a newborn) and slaughter two animals for it, and we do not deal with her. This is what the scholars said.
The questioner : This opinion is weak.
The Shaykh : Yes, this opinion is weak. I say it is weak. 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) said on the pulpit: "except if there is clear evidence, pregnancy, or confession". So, the result is that I say it is not obligatory for the husband to be flogged, because perhaps he has repented. If a person commits zina and repents before the hadd is carried out against him, the hadd is lifted from him. Even if we begin the hadd and he flees and repents, we do not complete it against him. In the case of Ma'iz, when he fled, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah 20:705.
In fact, if we consider the Shari'ah texts, we find that the matter is easy, praise be to Allah, contrary to what we now believe regarding strictness and jealousy. The matter is easy, with ease.
So much so that a discussion occurred between some people and others. They said: The person who commits major sins and dies without repentance is not punished for them, because it is Allah's right over His servants, which He has obligated, that He does not punish one who does not associate anything with Him, and that He has forbidden the Fire for the one who says "La ilaha illa Allah" (There is no deity but Allah) sincerely from his heart; He has forbidden him from the Fire. A discussion took place among the scholars regarding this issue, but the correct view is that major sins require repentance, and that what is less than shirk (associating partners with Allah) is under Allah's will: if He wills, Allah forgives him, and if He wills, He punishes him.
The questioner : Is the one who is attributed to his mother referred to by his father's name...?
The Shaykh : And who is his father?
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : And what is his mother's name?
The questioner : For example, Zaynab.
The Shaykh : We say Muhammad ibn Zaynab. Hasn't 'Abd Allah ibn Malik ibn Bahinah passed by you?
This is from the Companions. Sometimes it is said 'Abd Allah ibn Bahinah, 'Abd Allah ibn Abi ibn Salul. Salul is not his grandfather; Salul is his mother.
Therefore, we give you a spelling benefit. We say: 'Abd Allah ibn Malik ibn Bahinah. If Bahinah were his grandfather, we would say 'Abd Allah ibn Malik_i ibn_i Bahinah. What did we do now? We removed the tanween (vowel marker) from Malik, we broke the kasrah (short i) on "ibn Bahinah," and we removed the alif of "ibn." Good.
If Bahinah is his mother, the rulings are reversed. So we say: 'Abd Allah ibn Malik_i ibnu. "Ibnu" instead of "ibni" because "ibn" is a description of the first 'Abd Allah, not of the genitive Malik, and we keep the alif as the alif of connection (hamzat al-wasl). So these are three rulings that differ depending on whether the third person is a grandfather or a mother.
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : Yes, but the second marker is not "father," for the sake of distinction.
The Shaykh : No.
The questioner : Why?
The Shaykh : Because zina requires a confession four times, and if he confesses, he must remain until the hadd is completed against him.
The questioner : But his claiming the child...?
The Shaykh : It is not obligatory, and no one has made it obligatory. The scholars differed on the case of a woman who becomes pregnant while having no husband and no master, and she does not claim coercion. They said: The hadd is not carried out against such a woman. If we see this woman becoming pregnant and giving birth to a child every year, we say, "May Allah bless her," we perform the 'aqiqah (sacrifice for a newborn) and slaughter two animals for it, and we do not deal with her. This is what the scholars said.
The questioner : This opinion is weak.
The Shaykh : Yes, this opinion is weak. I say it is weak. 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) said on the pulpit: "except if there is clear evidence, pregnancy, or confession". So, the result is that I say it is not obligatory for the husband to be flogged, because perhaps he has repented. If a person commits zina and repents before the hadd is carried out against him, the hadd is lifted from him. Even if we begin the hadd and he flees and repents, we do not complete it against him. In the case of Ma'iz, when he fled, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
Why don't you leave him to repent, so that Allah may accept his repentance?
هلا تركتموه يتوب فيتوب الله عليهIn fact, if we consider the Shari'ah texts, we find that the matter is easy, praise be to Allah, contrary to what we now believe regarding strictness and jealousy. The matter is easy, with ease.
So much so that a discussion occurred between some people and others. They said: The person who commits major sins and dies without repentance is not punished for them, because it is Allah's right over His servants, which He has obligated, that He does not punish one who does not associate anything with Him, and that He has forbidden the Fire for the one who says "La ilaha illa Allah" (There is no deity but Allah) sincerely from his heart; He has forbidden him from the Fire. A discussion took place among the scholars regarding this issue, but the correct view is that major sins require repentance, and that what is less than shirk (associating partners with Allah) is under Allah's will: if He wills, Allah forgives him, and if He wills, He punishes him.
The questioner : Is the one who is attributed to his mother referred to by his father's name...?
The Shaykh : And who is his father?
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : And what is his mother's name?
The questioner : For example, Zaynab.
The Shaykh : We say Muhammad ibn Zaynab. Hasn't 'Abd Allah ibn Malik ibn Bahinah passed by you?
This is from the Companions. Sometimes it is said 'Abd Allah ibn Bahinah, 'Abd Allah ibn Abi ibn Salul. Salul is not his grandfather; Salul is his mother.
Therefore, we give you a spelling benefit. We say: 'Abd Allah ibn Malik ibn Bahinah. If Bahinah were his grandfather, we would say 'Abd Allah ibn Malik_i ibn_i Bahinah. What did we do now? We removed the tanween (vowel marker) from Malik, we broke the kasrah (short i) on "ibn Bahinah," and we removed the alif of "ibn." Good.
If Bahinah is his mother, the rulings are reversed. So we say: 'Abd Allah ibn Malik_i ibnu. "Ibnu" instead of "ibni" because "ibn" is a description of the first 'Abd Allah, not of the genitive Malik, and we keep the alif as the alif of connection (hamzat al-wasl). So these are three rulings that differ depending on whether the third person is a grandfather or a mother.
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : Yes, but the second marker is not "father," for the sake of distinction.