Continuation of the mention of the disagreement among jurists regarding the hadd for sodomy?

People cannot be safe except through this ruling. As for the second opinion, which holds that its hadd is the hadd of the fornicator, this is the well-known position in the madhhab of Imam Ahmad. They stated regarding this that the hadith, in their view, does not establish a proof, meaning it does not reach the level at which the blood of a Muslim becomes permissible to shed. Therefore, it is a heinous act by the explicit text of the Qur'an, and it must be linked to the heinous act mentioned in the text of the Qur'an. What is the heinous act by the text of the Qur'an? Zina. Consequently, its path is the path of zina: the married person is stoned, the unmarried person is flogged, and he is exiled. As for the third opinion, it is reported from Abu Hanifah (may Allah have mercy on him), but it is a very weak opinion. The fact that it is abhorrent and not accepted by nature is true regarding sound natures, but regarding sick natures, they accept it, do they not? They accept it. These are the people of the nation of Lut, all of them engaged in this act. Yes, so how can we say that what is abhorrent to the base nature is not deterred by torture? The correct view is that this opinion is very weak, and if it had not been reported, we would not have mentioned it, but it is extremely weak.