A single loti is like a zani
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said, "A loti is found like a zani". This is a nominal sentence (mubtada'), and "like a zani" (kazan) is the prepositional phrase serving as the predicate (khabar). As for his saying, "loti", the loti is one who commits the abomination in the rear of a male. This loti, may Allah protect us from it, is one who commits the abomination in the rear of a male, and he is called a loti by reference to the people of Lut, because the people of Lut, may Allah protect us from it, were the first to establish this abomination in the worlds. Their prophet said to them: [Al-A'raf 7:80]. And sodomy is greater than fornication and more hideous, because fornication is committing an abomination in a private part that is permissible in some cases, but sodomy is committing an abomination in a private part that is never permissible, in the rear which is never permissible. For this reason, Allah said regarding fornication: . And He said regarding sodomy: Lut said to his people: . And Allah affirmed him in that and related his words with approval. And "al" means "the most hideous," indicating that this vile act has gathered all obscenity, the great abomination above which there is no abomination. This is a matter agreed upon by people that the ugliness of sodomy is greater than the ugliness of fornication. So what is its prescribed punishment (hadd)? Some scholars said its hadd is that he is killed, and they differed on how he is killed, and this is the highest of what was said about it.
Some said its hadd is the hadd of the fornicator: if he is married, he is stoned to death, and if he is unmarried, he is flogged and exiled. Others said rather that he is given a discretionary punishment (ta'zir) that does not reach the level of the hadd. Others said he is not given a discretionary punishment and there is nothing in it; this does not mean it is lawful, but that there is no punishment. Why, people? They said, relying on the psychological deterrent, because souls detest it. If someone served a meal of excrement and urine, and started eating the excrement and dragging the urine over it, they say he is not given a discretionary punishment because this thing, they say, the psychological deterrent is sufficient for this. Undoubtedly, this opinion is one of the most invalid opinions, one of the most invalid opinions like this one. If it were not for what we mentioned, but we mentioned it so that you may take heed that some scholars follow a very bad methodology in what they say. Did he not forget that Allah the Exalted destroyed their land, sent upon them stones of baked clay, and ground them to dust? And did he not mention that the Messenger said:Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1456Hasan (Darussalam), and it is authentic according to the conditions of al-Bukhari, but in any case, there may be a contradiction regarding the authenticity of the hadith. But the punishment of Allah the Glorious and Exalted, and His description of it as the abominable act, how can we say there is nothing in it? The correct of these opinions is that its hadd is killing in all cases; this is the correct one, whether he is married or unmarried. But the conditions of the hadd mentioned previously are necessary, and they are four: the hadd is not obligatory except upon an adult, sane, coerced, and one who knows the prohibition. The conditions are necessary. If the four general conditions of the hadd are met, he is killed. The evidence for this is the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1456Hasan (Darussalam). This is one.
Second, that the Companions agreed upon killing him, as related by more than one scholar. They agreed that he is killed, but they differed. Some said he is burned, and this opinion is narrated from Abu Bakr, 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, 'Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr, and the fourth is Hisham ibn 'Abd al-Malik or 'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, one of them. That means two of the Rightly Guided Caliphs: Abu Bakr and 'Ali ibn Abi Talib.
And Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) said rather that he is looked at from the highest place in the town and thrown from it headfirst, and followed by stones, because Allah did that to the people of Lut, according to what is in that of consideration. But the famous one is this. And some scholars said rather he is stoned to death because Allah sent upon the people of Lut stones of baked clay. And that He raised their land and then overturned it is an Israelite narrative that is neither affirmed nor denied. But what is established is that Allah the Exalted sent upon them stones of baked clay and made their high places their low places, meaning when the stones came, it collapsed and the high became the low. So they stone him with stones. So these are three opinions regarding the description of executing the loti.
As for the theoretical evidence for the obligation of killing him, it is because this is a great social harm that makes men the place of women, and it is not possible to guard against it. How is it not possible to guard against it? Because males are always with each other, so we cannot guard against it. If we find a man with a boy, we cannot say "leave the boy and what brought you to him?" But if we see a man with a woman and suspect whether she is one of his mahrams or not, we can ask and investigate. So when this matter is a terrible thing that corrupts society, and a matter from which there is no escape and no guarding, its penalty is killing in all cases. And this opinion is the correct opinion, but the four previous conditions for the obligation of the hadd are necessary. Now, if someone asks: Do we burn them, or throw them from a high place and stone them, or stone them? We say the first in that is that the one in authority does what is more painful and more deterrent. If he sees that they are burned by gathering firewood in front of people, then bringing them and throwing them in the fire, he does it. If he sees that he looks at the tallest minaret in the town and throws them from it and follows them with stones, and that this is more painful and more deterrent, he does it. If he sees that they are stoned, they are stood in front of people and the young and old stone them with stones. The important thing is that he does what he sees as more painful and more deterrent, because this, may Allah protect us, is a very ugly abomination, and if the rein is left loose, it spreads quickly among people until it destroys them.
As for the school of thought, their argument in their hadd like a zani is that they say because this is an abomination, and Allah the Exalted called fornication an abomination. If that is the case, then we treat this like the second, and its hadd is the hadd of the fornicator. But we need from you, O grammarians, the parsing of the author's saying: "like a zani" ... and the prepositional phrase is connected to the predicate.
Do you commit such immorality as no one has preceded you with from among the worlds?
أتأتون الفاحشة ما سبقكم بها من أحد من العالمينAnd do not approach zina. Indeed, it is a shameful act.
ولا تقربوا الزنا إنه كان فاحشةDo you approach the shameful act?
أتأتون الفاحشةSome said its hadd is the hadd of the fornicator: if he is married, he is stoned to death, and if he is unmarried, he is flogged and exiled. Others said rather that he is given a discretionary punishment (ta'zir) that does not reach the level of the hadd. Others said he is not given a discretionary punishment and there is nothing in it; this does not mean it is lawful, but that there is no punishment. Why, people? They said, relying on the psychological deterrent, because souls detest it. If someone served a meal of excrement and urine, and started eating the excrement and dragging the urine over it, they say he is not given a discretionary punishment because this thing, they say, the psychological deterrent is sufficient for this. Undoubtedly, this opinion is one of the most invalid opinions, one of the most invalid opinions like this one. If it were not for what we mentioned, but we mentioned it so that you may take heed that some scholars follow a very bad methodology in what they say. Did he not forget that Allah the Exalted destroyed their land, sent upon them stones of baked clay, and ground them to dust? And did he not mention that the Messenger said:
Whomever you find doing the actions of the people of Lut then kill the one doing it, and the one it is done to.
من وجدتموه يعمل عمل قوم لوط فاقتلوا الفاعل والمفعول بهWhomever you find doing the actions of the people of Lut then kill the one doing it, and the one it is done to.
من وجدتموه يعمل عمل قوم لوط فاقتلوا الفاعل والمفعول بهSecond, that the Companions agreed upon killing him, as related by more than one scholar. They agreed that he is killed, but they differed. Some said he is burned, and this opinion is narrated from Abu Bakr, 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, 'Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr, and the fourth is Hisham ibn 'Abd al-Malik or 'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, one of them. That means two of the Rightly Guided Caliphs: Abu Bakr and 'Ali ibn Abi Talib.
And Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) said rather that he is looked at from the highest place in the town and thrown from it headfirst, and followed by stones, because Allah did that to the people of Lut, according to what is in that of consideration. But the famous one is this. And some scholars said rather he is stoned to death because Allah sent upon the people of Lut stones of baked clay. And that He raised their land and then overturned it is an Israelite narrative that is neither affirmed nor denied. But what is established is that Allah the Exalted sent upon them stones of baked clay and made their high places their low places, meaning when the stones came, it collapsed and the high became the low. So they stone him with stones. So these are three opinions regarding the description of executing the loti.
As for the theoretical evidence for the obligation of killing him, it is because this is a great social harm that makes men the place of women, and it is not possible to guard against it. How is it not possible to guard against it? Because males are always with each other, so we cannot guard against it. If we find a man with a boy, we cannot say "leave the boy and what brought you to him?" But if we see a man with a woman and suspect whether she is one of his mahrams or not, we can ask and investigate. So when this matter is a terrible thing that corrupts society, and a matter from which there is no escape and no guarding, its penalty is killing in all cases. And this opinion is the correct opinion, but the four previous conditions for the obligation of the hadd are necessary. Now, if someone asks: Do we burn them, or throw them from a high place and stone them, or stone them? We say the first in that is that the one in authority does what is more painful and more deterrent. If he sees that they are burned by gathering firewood in front of people, then bringing them and throwing them in the fire, he does it. If he sees that he looks at the tallest minaret in the town and throws them from it and follows them with stones, and that this is more painful and more deterrent, he does it. If he sees that they are stoned, they are stood in front of people and the young and old stone them with stones. The important thing is that he does what he sees as more painful and more deterrent, because this, may Allah protect us, is a very ugly abomination, and if the rein is left loose, it spreads quickly among people until it destroys them.
As for the school of thought, their argument in their hadd like a zani is that they say because this is an abomination, and Allah the Exalted called fornication an abomination. If that is the case, then we treat this like the second, and its hadd is the hadd of the fornicator. But we need from you, O grammarians, the parsing of the author's saying: "like a zani" ... and the prepositional phrase is connected to the predicate.