"And the man is struck for the hadd while standing, with a whip that is neither new nor old, and he is not stretched out, nor tied up, nor stripped naked, but rather he should have on a shirt or two shirts."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : All right, and if we want to carry out the hadd, with what do we carry it out? In what manner do we carry it out? With what do we carry it out? And how do we carry it out? In what manner do we carry it out? In any place except the mosque. How do we carry it out? The author said "And the man is struck for the hadd while standing". This is how we carry it out: we strike the man while he is standing, not sitting or lying down, but rather he is struck while standing. However, he must be struck; it is not that he is struck on his clothing, but he himself is struck. As for if... he pushes himself aside and makes his clothing what is struck, then this is not striking. Yes, we see if the result is beneficial or not. He is struck while standing, as opposed to the sitting or lying down person, but on the condition that the striking falls on him, not on his clothing. He is also struck with a whip or a mallet? With a whip. The whip is known: a palm frond or a stick... and the like. It must not be with something hard like iron. It must be neither new nor old. The new one is known to be hard, and the old one is brittle, so it may break or crumble, and no striking may come from it. So it must be a whip between two whips, neither new nor old.
All right, the author also says "and he is not stretched out". Who is not stretched out? The man. When we strike him, we do not stretch him out on the ground. Why? Because if we stretch him out on the ground, the strike will be two strikes. How? Because the whip falls, and then the ground collides with him, so it is as if he was struck twice. So he is struck while standing only, and he is not stretched out. "and he is not tied up". The cause is the same thing, because if you tie him to a pole or a piece of wood, the strike will be two strikes. Also, they mentioned a report from Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said: "There is no stretching out, no striking, and no stripping in our religion".
"and he is not stripped naked". What does "he is not stripped naked" mean? Does it mean you do not remove his clothes or his lower garment? Yes, not his lower garment and not his cloak, but rather his clothes remain on him. Except if he puts something in them that prevents the pain, then he must be stripped of what prevents it. For example, if he puts on a fur skin, they said: unless he has a fur skin on, then remove it. If he puts on a fur skin, we cannot allow it. Or if he puts on leather or plastic or the like.
A slave girl was brought to 'Ali ibn Abi Talib to be struck for the hadd, so he ordered that she be stripped, and she had an iron armor on, so that it would not affect her. So if we know that there is something preventing the pain, it is obligatory for us to remove it, and it is not permissible to favor anyone in that.
He said: "and he is not stripped naked, but rather he should have on a shirt or two shirts". Is this for choice or for variation? For variation. That means the clothing he has on, whether a shirt or two shirts, is left on him. What if he has three on? The apparent ruling is that we remove the third one. But what if it is a cloak? Sami says we put... Yes, yes, the striking, no, no. We see if these three prevent the pain? If they prevent it, we prevent it. Sometimes the three are light, so even though there are three, they do not prevent it. And the important thing is that the pain of the striking reaches his body. Yes, but rather he should have on a shirt or two shirts. That is all. All right, yes.
All right, the author also says "and he is not stretched out". Who is not stretched out? The man. When we strike him, we do not stretch him out on the ground. Why? Because if we stretch him out on the ground, the strike will be two strikes. How? Because the whip falls, and then the ground collides with him, so it is as if he was struck twice. So he is struck while standing only, and he is not stretched out. "and he is not tied up". The cause is the same thing, because if you tie him to a pole or a piece of wood, the strike will be two strikes. Also, they mentioned a report from Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said: "There is no stretching out, no striking, and no stripping in our religion".
"and he is not stripped naked". What does "he is not stripped naked" mean? Does it mean you do not remove his clothes or his lower garment? Yes, not his lower garment and not his cloak, but rather his clothes remain on him. Except if he puts something in them that prevents the pain, then he must be stripped of what prevents it. For example, if he puts on a fur skin, they said: unless he has a fur skin on, then remove it. If he puts on a fur skin, we cannot allow it. Or if he puts on leather or plastic or the like.
A slave girl was brought to 'Ali ibn Abi Talib to be struck for the hadd, so he ordered that she be stripped, and she had an iron armor on, so that it would not affect her. So if we know that there is something preventing the pain, it is obligatory for us to remove it, and it is not permissible to favor anyone in that.
He said: "and he is not stripped naked, but rather he should have on a shirt or two shirts". Is this for choice or for variation? For variation. That means the clothing he has on, whether a shirt or two shirts, is left on him. What if he has three on? The apparent ruling is that we remove the third one. But what if it is a cloak? Sami says we put... Yes, yes, the striking, no, no. We see if these three prevent the pain? If they prevent it, we prevent it. Sometimes the three are light, so even though there are three, they do not prevent it. And the important thing is that the pain of the striking reaches his body. Yes, but rather he should have on a shirt or two shirts. That is all. All right, yes.