Then the author (may Allah have mercy on him) said in tonight's lesson: "And from Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), he said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then the author (may Allah have mercy on him) said in tonight's lesson: "And from Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), he said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: Bulugh al-Maram 8:57 It was narrated by al-Tirmidhi, al-Nasa'i, and Ibn Hibban, and it was criticized for being mawquf".
"Allah does not look" means: a look of mercy and compassion, and it is not intended to mean the general look, because nothing is hidden from Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) and nothing is absent from His sight, but rather it is intended to be a look of mercy and compassion.
And his saying:Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1165Hasan (Darussalam) This is based on the common case, meaning describing a man who comes to a man, and otherwise, if he came to someone who is not a man, meaning: a person who has not reached puberty, because "man" is the name for one who has reached puberty, so if a man came to someone below the age of puberty, this ruling would be established for him.
And his saying:Jami` at-Tirmidhi 135Hasan (Darussalam) Likewise, Allah does not look at a man who comes to a woman in her rear, even if she is his wife, because this is a type of sodomy, and may Allah protect us from it.
So in this hadith, the author says: It was narrated by al-Tirmidhi and al-Nasa'i, and it was criticized for being mawquf. The meaning of "criticized for being mawquf" is: that some of the narrators narrated it as mawquf, or that some of the scholars of hadith said: it is mawquf.
And the criticism for being mawquf, we have previously established that it is not a defect unless the one who raised it to the Prophet is not trustworthy, but if the one who raised it is trustworthy, then the correct view is that being mawquf is not a defect. - Pay attention - if someone criticizes it for being mawquf, we say: this defect is not disqualifying. And I think we have known the difference between marfu' and mawquf. Marfu' is what is attributed to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and mawquf is what is attributed to a Companion. And we are saying now: if one of the scholars of hadith says: it is mawquf upon the Companion, upon Ibn 'Abbas, the answer to that is from two angles:
The first angle: that the criticism for being mawquf is not a defect if the one who raised it is trustworthy, because the marfu' has an addition of knowledge, and the aspect of the addition is that the chain of the mawquf ends at the Companion, and the chain of the marfu' ends at the Prophet (may the prayer and peace of Allah be upon him), so this is an addition.
Then we also say: that a Companion sometimes attributes the hadith to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) if he intends to narrate it, and he must attribute it to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) if he intends to narrate it. And sometimes he says the hadith from himself if he intends the ruling. He says the hadith from himself if he intends the ruling. So the listener hears it and had not heard it before as marfu' to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), so he thinks it is mawquf.
And this specific hadith, we say: even if it is established that it is mawquf upon Ibn 'Abbas, then something like this is not said by opinion, so the ruling of marfu' is established for it, because the warning that Allah does not look cannot be brought by Ibn 'Abbas from himself, so the ruling of marfu' is established for it.
So if someone says: You do not rule with marfu' for the saying of a Companion known for taking from the Children of Israel, and Ibn 'Abbas is among those known for taking from the Children of Israel? The answer to that, or about that, is that we say: this is in matters of the unseen, but in the rulings of the Shari'ah, Ibn 'Abbas, even if he took from the Prophet of Israel what he took in encouraging and warning and the like, it is not possible for him to take from the Children of Israel what relates to the rulings of the Shari'ah, because this would necessitate legislating something in the Shari'ah of Muhammad taken from the Children of Israel, and something like this is not possible for Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) to do. So pay attention to these benefits; these benefits may not be found limited.
The criticism for being mawquf, we said.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : On the condition that the one who raised it is trustworthy, and the aspect of that is that the narrator of the hadith sometimes wants to attribute it to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), so here he must reach the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), meaning, for example, if Ibn 'Abbas wanted to attribute the hadith to the Messenger, he must reach the Messenger. And sometimes he wants to clarify the ruling of the Shari'ah, so here he might say it from himself, so the one who hears it thinks it is from his saying and narrates it as mawquf.
Second: We said: that there is no room for opinion in a ruling like this, so if it is assumed that its end is Ibn 'Abbas, then something like this is not said by opinion, and at that time the ruling of marfu' is established for it. If someone brings up to us that Ibn 'Abbas is among those known for taking from the Children of Israel, and we say: that the saying of a Companion is established with the ruling of marfu' if he is not known for taking from the Children of Israel, so what is the answer to that? That this is a ruling of the Shari'ah, it is not in what relates to encouraging and warning or their enjoyment, it is a ruling of the Shari'ah that Ibn 'Abbas cannot receive from the Children of Israel and spread in the community.
In this hadith there are benefits: First: establishing the attribute of looking for Allah (Mighty and Majestic), establishing the attribute of looking for Allah, meaning from Him, due to His saying: to such and such, and negating the looking for these people indicates the establishment of looking for others, did you understand? Muslim, this or not Muslim?
The student: Muslim.
The Shaykh : Yes, because if the looking were negated for everyone, there would be no benefit in specifying these people, and the Imams have used something like this as evidence. In His saying (Glorified and Exalted is He):[Al-Mutaffifin 83:15] The Imams used it as evidence that the righteous see Allah. They said: because when these wicked people were veiled in the state of anger, it indicated that the righteous in the state of pleasure are looked at by Him, because if He looked at these and these, there would be no benefit in specifying these. Clear? And this is an important benefit in using evidence.
Now, and from the benefits of this hadith: that a man coming to a man is among the major sins. The aspect of that is: that he established the warning for it, and every sin for which a warning is established is among the major sins. Every sin for which a hudud punishment is established in this world is among the major sins. Every sin from which the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) disavowed its doer is among the major sins. And the best definition of a major sin is what Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "That for which a specific punishment is established is among the major sins". And that is because the prohibited things are sometimes prohibited or said to be haram only, and sometimes they are coupled with a specific punishment, either in this world or in the Hereafter. So this is, this is the major sin.
And the hudud punishment for a man coming to a man in this world was not mentioned in this hadith, and the scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) differed in that:
So some of the scholars said: that a man coming to a man has ta'zir but not a hudud punishment.
And others said: it has the hudud punishment of zina, so the muhsan is stoned and the other is flogged.
And others said: rather, the doer and the one acted upon are killed in every case, whether he is muhsan or not muhsan.
And others said: there is no hudud and no ta'zir in it! And this is among the strange opinions, meaning a man coming to a man has no hudud and no ta'zir, sufficing with the natural deterrent, and they analogized it to one who drinks urine and drinks khamr. So one who drinks khamr is flogged, and one who drinks urine is not flogged. They said: sufficing with what? The natural deterrent, no one among people drinks urine, but many people go and drink khamr, so a punishment was made for it in order to deter people from drinking khamr. But this opinion is among the invalid opinions, the ruling is not correct in the original nor in the branch. We do not accept that one who drinks urine is not given ta'zir, rather we see that it is obligatory that he be given ta'zir, because drinking urine is haram, and if a person is not deterred by his nature and fitrah, he is deterred by the stick and the whip. And every disobedience that does not have a hudud has ta'zir in it. So if the original is invalid, the branch is invalid. Then, even on the assumption of acceptance that drinking urine has nothing in it, the analogy is not correct, because drinking urine is not possible for any person to be inclined to, whereas a man coming to a male, this is possible for a person to be inclined to. And here are the people of Lot, a nation all of them, and may Allah protect us from it, they were afflicted with this thing, so they used to come to the males of the world, and they left what their Lord created for them of wives. They were afflicted with this, and may Allah protect us from it, when they violated the haram, Allah placed in their hearts a dislike of women, so they used to leave the wives even if they were among the most beautiful of women, and they used to commit the indecency?
Now, so what is the stronger opinion among these opinions? The stronger opinion among these opinions is that the doer and the one acted upon are killed.
First: because that came in the hadith from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), where he said:Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1456Hasan (Darussalam) And this is a hadith that many of the Imams authenticated.
Second: It is reported that the Companions reached a consensus (ijma') on killing both the active party and the passive party. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah and others have narrated their consensus. However, the Companions differed on how he should be killed. Some said: with the sword. Some said: by stoning. Some said: by throwing him from the highest point in the city and then stoning him. Some said: rather, he should be burned, as that was reported from Abu Bakr and other caliphs. The most correct view is that he should be killed by whatever the imam deems to be the most painful and the greatest deterrent, whether by burning, throwing from the highest point in the city, or stoning. The important thing is that he does whatever he sees as the most painful and greatest deterrent for people, because this sin, may Allah protect us from it, is a heinous and vile sin that necessitates making males the equivalent of females, so that males become like females, and it is not possible to guard against it. How can one guard against it when one sees a male with a male? One cannot say, "Who is this with you?" But a male with a female, people can guard against that.
So the important point is: the stronger position is that it is obligatory for the one in authority to kill both the active party and the passive party, but the conditions of reaching puberty, sanity, and choice are required. So if one has not reached puberty, he is not killed but is given a discretionary punishment (ta'zir), just as a ten-year-old boy is given a discretionary punishment for leaving the prayer. And if one is insane, he is likewise not killed, because he has no intellect. And if one is coerced into it, he is not killed, whether he is the passive party or the active party.
The student: He is killed.
The Shaykh : He is killed?
The student: Coercion is not possible.
The Shaykh : No, coercion is possible, it is possible to coerce, but...
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Coerce, coerce.
The student: That it was done to him...
The Shaykh : Yes, yes, he is coerced into having it done to him. A person comes to him, may Allah protect us from it... because some people are like women; they want it done to them and seek it everywhere, seeking whoever will do it to them, may Allah protect us from it. So a person comes to him and asks him to do it to him, saying, "Either you do what I say, or I will kill you," and he has a weapon. Is it possible or not possible? It is possible, but the jurists, may Allah have mercy on them, say: coercion is not possible in intercourse, because there is no intercourse without arousal, and there is no arousal with coercion. The coerced person will not have his penis aroused, because he is afraid. But this is also not correct, because if one is afflicted, may Allah grant us safety, it may happen from him, even if he is coerced, because the soul is inclined to evil. Perhaps if he is coerced until nothing remains but the act, yes, he forgets the coercion and this thing happens from him.
In any case: the one coerced into the act, whether as the active party or the passive party, does not have the fixed punishment (hadd) applied to him, but the coercion must be established.
All right, he said:Jami` at-Tirmidhi 135Hasan (Darussalam) This is the witness.
Allah will not look at a man who has intercourse with a man or a woman through the anus.
لا ينظر الله إلى رجل أتى رجلاً أو امرأة في دبرها"Allah does not look" means: a look of mercy and compassion, and it is not intended to mean the general look, because nothing is hidden from Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) and nothing is absent from His sight, but rather it is intended to be a look of mercy and compassion.
And his saying:
Allah will not look at a man who enters a man
لا ينظر الله إلى رجل أتى رجلًاAnd his saying:
or a woman in her anus
أو امرأة في دبرهاSo in this hadith, the author says: It was narrated by al-Tirmidhi and al-Nasa'i, and it was criticized for being mawquf. The meaning of "criticized for being mawquf" is: that some of the narrators narrated it as mawquf, or that some of the scholars of hadith said: it is mawquf.
And the criticism for being mawquf, we have previously established that it is not a defect unless the one who raised it to the Prophet is not trustworthy, but if the one who raised it is trustworthy, then the correct view is that being mawquf is not a defect. - Pay attention - if someone criticizes it for being mawquf, we say: this defect is not disqualifying. And I think we have known the difference between marfu' and mawquf. Marfu' is what is attributed to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and mawquf is what is attributed to a Companion. And we are saying now: if one of the scholars of hadith says: it is mawquf upon the Companion, upon Ibn 'Abbas, the answer to that is from two angles:
The first angle: that the criticism for being mawquf is not a defect if the one who raised it is trustworthy, because the marfu' has an addition of knowledge, and the aspect of the addition is that the chain of the mawquf ends at the Companion, and the chain of the marfu' ends at the Prophet (may the prayer and peace of Allah be upon him), so this is an addition.
Then we also say: that a Companion sometimes attributes the hadith to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) if he intends to narrate it, and he must attribute it to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) if he intends to narrate it. And sometimes he says the hadith from himself if he intends the ruling. He says the hadith from himself if he intends the ruling. So the listener hears it and had not heard it before as marfu' to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), so he thinks it is mawquf.
And this specific hadith, we say: even if it is established that it is mawquf upon Ibn 'Abbas, then something like this is not said by opinion, so the ruling of marfu' is established for it, because the warning that Allah does not look cannot be brought by Ibn 'Abbas from himself, so the ruling of marfu' is established for it.
So if someone says: You do not rule with marfu' for the saying of a Companion known for taking from the Children of Israel, and Ibn 'Abbas is among those known for taking from the Children of Israel? The answer to that, or about that, is that we say: this is in matters of the unseen, but in the rulings of the Shari'ah, Ibn 'Abbas, even if he took from the Prophet of Israel what he took in encouraging and warning and the like, it is not possible for him to take from the Children of Israel what relates to the rulings of the Shari'ah, because this would necessitate legislating something in the Shari'ah of Muhammad taken from the Children of Israel, and something like this is not possible for Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) to do. So pay attention to these benefits; these benefits may not be found limited.
The criticism for being mawquf, we said.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : On the condition that the one who raised it is trustworthy, and the aspect of that is that the narrator of the hadith sometimes wants to attribute it to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), so here he must reach the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), meaning, for example, if Ibn 'Abbas wanted to attribute the hadith to the Messenger, he must reach the Messenger. And sometimes he wants to clarify the ruling of the Shari'ah, so here he might say it from himself, so the one who hears it thinks it is from his saying and narrates it as mawquf.
Second: We said: that there is no room for opinion in a ruling like this, so if it is assumed that its end is Ibn 'Abbas, then something like this is not said by opinion, and at that time the ruling of marfu' is established for it. If someone brings up to us that Ibn 'Abbas is among those known for taking from the Children of Israel, and we say: that the saying of a Companion is established with the ruling of marfu' if he is not known for taking from the Children of Israel, so what is the answer to that? That this is a ruling of the Shari'ah, it is not in what relates to encouraging and warning or their enjoyment, it is a ruling of the Shari'ah that Ibn 'Abbas cannot receive from the Children of Israel and spread in the community.
In this hadith there are benefits: First: establishing the attribute of looking for Allah (Mighty and Majestic), establishing the attribute of looking for Allah, meaning from Him, due to His saying:
Allah does not look
لا ينظر اللهThe student: Muslim.
The Shaykh : Yes, because if the looking were negated for everyone, there would be no benefit in specifying these people, and the Imams have used something like this as evidence. In His saying (Glorified and Exalted is He):
No! Indeed, from their Lord, that Day, they will be partitioned.
كلا إنهم عن ربهم يومئذ لمحجوبونNow, and from the benefits of this hadith: that a man coming to a man is among the major sins. The aspect of that is: that he established the warning for it, and every sin for which a warning is established is among the major sins. Every sin for which a hudud punishment is established in this world is among the major sins. Every sin from which the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) disavowed its doer is among the major sins. And the best definition of a major sin is what Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "That for which a specific punishment is established is among the major sins". And that is because the prohibited things are sometimes prohibited or said to be haram only, and sometimes they are coupled with a specific punishment, either in this world or in the Hereafter. So this is, this is the major sin.
And the hudud punishment for a man coming to a man in this world was not mentioned in this hadith, and the scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) differed in that:
So some of the scholars said: that a man coming to a man has ta'zir but not a hudud punishment.
And others said: it has the hudud punishment of zina, so the muhsan is stoned and the other is flogged.
And others said: rather, the doer and the one acted upon are killed in every case, whether he is muhsan or not muhsan.
And others said: there is no hudud and no ta'zir in it! And this is among the strange opinions, meaning a man coming to a man has no hudud and no ta'zir, sufficing with the natural deterrent, and they analogized it to one who drinks urine and drinks khamr. So one who drinks khamr is flogged, and one who drinks urine is not flogged. They said: sufficing with what? The natural deterrent, no one among people drinks urine, but many people go and drink khamr, so a punishment was made for it in order to deter people from drinking khamr. But this opinion is among the invalid opinions, the ruling is not correct in the original nor in the branch. We do not accept that one who drinks urine is not given ta'zir, rather we see that it is obligatory that he be given ta'zir, because drinking urine is haram, and if a person is not deterred by his nature and fitrah, he is deterred by the stick and the whip. And every disobedience that does not have a hudud has ta'zir in it. So if the original is invalid, the branch is invalid. Then, even on the assumption of acceptance that drinking urine has nothing in it, the analogy is not correct, because drinking urine is not possible for any person to be inclined to, whereas a man coming to a male, this is possible for a person to be inclined to. And here are the people of Lot, a nation all of them, and may Allah protect us from it, they were afflicted with this thing, so they used to come to the males of the world, and they left what their Lord created for them of wives. They were afflicted with this, and may Allah protect us from it, when they violated the haram, Allah placed in their hearts a dislike of women, so they used to leave the wives even if they were among the most beautiful of women, and they used to commit the indecency?
Now, so what is the stronger opinion among these opinions? The stronger opinion among these opinions is that the doer and the one acted upon are killed.
First: because that came in the hadith from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), where he 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 بهSecond: It is reported that the Companions reached a consensus (ijma') on killing both the active party and the passive party. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah and others have narrated their consensus. However, the Companions differed on how he should be killed. Some said: with the sword. Some said: by stoning. Some said: by throwing him from the highest point in the city and then stoning him. Some said: rather, he should be burned, as that was reported from Abu Bakr and other caliphs. The most correct view is that he should be killed by whatever the imam deems to be the most painful and the greatest deterrent, whether by burning, throwing from the highest point in the city, or stoning. The important thing is that he does whatever he sees as the most painful and greatest deterrent for people, because this sin, may Allah protect us from it, is a heinous and vile sin that necessitates making males the equivalent of females, so that males become like females, and it is not possible to guard against it. How can one guard against it when one sees a male with a male? One cannot say, "Who is this with you?" But a male with a female, people can guard against that.
So the important point is: the stronger position is that it is obligatory for the one in authority to kill both the active party and the passive party, but the conditions of reaching puberty, sanity, and choice are required. So if one has not reached puberty, he is not killed but is given a discretionary punishment (ta'zir), just as a ten-year-old boy is given a discretionary punishment for leaving the prayer. And if one is insane, he is likewise not killed, because he has no intellect. And if one is coerced into it, he is not killed, whether he is the passive party or the active party.
The student: He is killed.
The Shaykh : He is killed?
The student: Coercion is not possible.
The Shaykh : No, coercion is possible, it is possible to coerce, but...
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Coerce, coerce.
The student: That it was done to him...
The Shaykh : Yes, yes, he is coerced into having it done to him. A person comes to him, may Allah protect us from it... because some people are like women; they want it done to them and seek it everywhere, seeking whoever will do it to them, may Allah protect us from it. So a person comes to him and asks him to do it to him, saying, "Either you do what I say, or I will kill you," and he has a weapon. Is it possible or not possible? It is possible, but the jurists, may Allah have mercy on them, say: coercion is not possible in intercourse, because there is no intercourse without arousal, and there is no arousal with coercion. The coerced person will not have his penis aroused, because he is afraid. But this is also not correct, because if one is afflicted, may Allah grant us safety, it may happen from him, even if he is coerced, because the soul is inclined to evil. Perhaps if he is coerced until nothing remains but the act, yes, he forgets the coercion and this thing happens from him.
In any case: the one coerced into the act, whether as the active party or the passive party, does not have the fixed punishment (hadd) applied to him, but the coercion must be established.
All right, he said: