And the hadd is not obligatory except with three conditions, the first of which is: concealing his entire original glans in a pure, original, forbidden female or male orifice of a living human being
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said "And the hadd is not obligatory except with three conditions" These conditions are additional to the previous general conditions, and the previous general conditions are eight?
Presence: four.
The Shaykh : Are you sure?
The Shaykh : An adult, sane, committed, and knowledgeable of the prohibition. We add three conditions to the hadd for zina: "except with three conditions, the first of which is concealing his entire original glans in a pure, original, forbidden female or male orifice of a living human being" The correct version is "of a living human being."
Okay, concealing his original glans, is it negated in your view? His entire original glans?
The questioner : We have concealing his original glans.
The Shaykh : What we have is concealing his entire original glans, which is more in accordance with the rules of grammar, because there is disagreement regarding the emphasis of a negated noun, even though Ibn Malik says:
"And if the emphasis of a negated noun precedes *** And the prohibition of the Basran grammarians is comprehensive" In any case, the apparent view in my opinion is the most correct.
Concealing his glans, that is, the glans of the fornicator, and the glans is well known. "Entirely" is to exclude a part. If he does not have a glans, as in the case of one whose glans has been cut off, then its measure is in its place.
"In a female or male orifice" is well known and does not need explanation; in the female orifice, or the male orifice which is the exit of excrement.
"Original" is a description of the female or male orifice, and their opposite is the non-original ones. What are the non-original ones? The hermaphrodite regarding the female orifice is clear, but regarding the male orifice? Yes, perhaps there is a person, may Allah spare us, who has no male orifice. Ibn Qudamah (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned in al-Mughni that it was reported to him that in Syria there were three people, one of whom said he had an opening between the exit of urine and excrement, from which both urine and excrement come out, and he has no female orifice and no penis. Blessed is Allah, the best of creators. The second has no female orifice and no penis, but he has a swelling from which urine is expelled. Glory be to Allah. The third has nothing from his lower part, and when he eats food, if he wills, he vomits it up, and this vomiting is in the place of excrement and urine. These people are judged by the ruling of the ambiguous hermaphrodite regarding inheritance.
In any case, the female and male orifices must be original, to exclude the non-original ones, such as the orifice of the hermaphrodite and a male orifice in a place other than its proper location.
He said "Purely forbidden" This will be discussed, if Allah wills, in the second condition, because it is essentially the condition. But he said "of a living human being" meaning that this female or male orifice must be from a human being. If it is from a non-human, the hadd for zina is not obligatory, but what is obligatory? Discretionary punishment (ta'zir) as the imam sees fit. So if a person penetrates an animal, he is punished with ta'zir and the animal is killed. It is killed as a forbidden carcass. If the animal belonged to him, it is lost to him, and if it belonged to someone else, he must compensate its owner. It was said that one who has intercourse with an animal is killed, based on a hadith reported on this matter, in which the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) saidSunan Ibn Majah 2564Sahih (Darussalam) This is general, so some scholars acted upon it, but the hadith is weak. Therefore, when the scholars found the hadith weak, they turned to the lighter of the two matters, which is killing the animal. As for the human being, he is not killed because his sanctity is greater, but he is punished with ta'zir because that is a sin. What is the evidence that intercourse with an animal is a sin? The saying of Allah the Exalted [Al-Mu'minun 23:5-7] What is beyond spouses and right of possession is considered aggression and injustice. So, "of a human being" excludes the non-human, so there is no hadd in it, but there is ta'zir and killing the animal based on the hadith reported regarding the killing of the animal. As for ta'zir, it is based on the general rule that ta'zir is obligatory for every sin that has no hadd and no expiation. As for those who say he is killed, they cited the hadith as evidence and authenticated it. They said the hadith is authentic, and they said that the orifice of the animal is an orifice that is not lawful in any case, so it is like sodomy, because it is an orifice that is not lawful under any circumstances, so it is like sodomy. But the madhhab, as you heard, is this: he is punished with ta'zir and the animal is killed.
The apparent statement of the author is that there is no difference between zina with those who are forbidden to marry and others. But the correct view is that zina with those who are forbidden to marry entails killing in all cases, based on an authentic hadith reported on this matter. Ibn al-Qayyim chose this in his book "The Sufficient Answer" that the one who commits zina with a woman who is forbidden to him is killed in all cases. For example, if he commits zina with his sister, may Allah protect us, or his aunt, or his maternal aunt, or his wife's mother, or his wife's daughter whom he has consummated the marriage with, or the like of that, he is killed in all cases, because this orifice is not lawful in any case, it is not lawful by contract or otherwise, from his mahram. And because this is a great sin, and a hadith was reported from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), also authentic, regarding the killing of one who has intercourse with a mahram from his mahrams. It is a narration from Ahmad and it is authentic: that the one who commits zina with those who are forbidden to marry is killed, even if he is not muhsan.
And his saying "of a living human being" is to exclude a dead person, meaning if he commits zina with a corpse, he is not given the hadd. Is this conceivable? It happens, yes, it happens, and it may happen. One person, I think, said it happens a lot, but I do not know about this frequency. The important thing is that if he commits zina with a dead woman, he is not given the hadd. Why? They said because the soul abhors it and dislikes it, so the natural deterrent is sufficient instead of the hadd. But he must be punished with ta'zir. Is the corpse punished with ta'zir? No, the corpse is not punished, but he is punished, may Allah protect us. It was said that the one who has intercourse with a corpse, committing zina with it, has two hadd punishments: he is given the hadd twice, once for the zina, and once for violating the sanctity of the corpse, because a living person may have desire and pleasure from her, unlike a corpse. So he is given the hadd twice. Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him), in one of the narrations, if it is not the last one, leans toward this, that he must have two hadd punishments, due to the ugliness of this matter, which is undoubtedly extremely ugly. At the very least, we should equate the corpse with the living person due to the generality of the evidence[An-Nur 24:2]. If we have general texts, this man is a fornicator. Even if the woman is not called a fornicator, it is not a condition. Therefore, if he commits zina with a insane woman, the hadd is obligatory for him and not obligatory for her, meaning the two hadd punishments are not necessarily simultaneous. If a muhsan commits zina with a virgin, he is stoned and she is flogged, so it is not a condition for establishing the hadd for zina that the two fornicators have the same punishment. So pay attention to the conditions now: concealing the entire original glans, in a female or male orifice, the third is original, the fourth is of a human being, the fifth is living. As for "purely forbidden," it falls under the absence of doubt in the second condition.
If these five conditions are not met, the hadd is not obligatory for the perpetrator, but ta'zir is obligatory for him. If a man stayed with a woman and started kissing her, embracing her, and having intercourse between the thighs, and did everything except inserting the glans? There is no hadd, but he is subject to ta'zir, unless he comes as a repentant person, meaning to the judge. The judge has the choice: if he wishes, he establishes ta'zir on him, and if he wishes, he does not establish ta'zir on him, because it is established in the authentic hadith that a man came to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) informing him that he did everything with a woman except marriage. He said He said: Yes, so he recited to him the saying of Allah the Exalted [Hud 11:114] and did not establish ta'zir on him. So if he comes repentant and regretful of his action, in this case, if we are asked to establish ta'zir on him and he insists on it, we establish it. Otherwise, we inform him that repentance covers what came before it.
Okay, the second condition is "the absence of doubt" ... "purely forbidden" is the second condition. In your view, it is "purely muhsan," apparently. "Purely muhsan"? No, the correct one is "purely forbidden." The correct one from the author's words is "purely forbidden." And in any case, there is no need for it, because the second condition, "the absence of doubt," suffices for it.
Presence: four.
The Shaykh : Are you sure?
The Shaykh : An adult, sane, committed, and knowledgeable of the prohibition. We add three conditions to the hadd for zina: "except with three conditions, the first of which is concealing his entire original glans in a pure, original, forbidden female or male orifice of a living human being" The correct version is "of a living human being."
Okay, concealing his original glans, is it negated in your view? His entire original glans?
The questioner : We have concealing his original glans.
The Shaykh : What we have is concealing his entire original glans, which is more in accordance with the rules of grammar, because there is disagreement regarding the emphasis of a negated noun, even though Ibn Malik says:
"And if the emphasis of a negated noun precedes *** And the prohibition of the Basran grammarians is comprehensive" In any case, the apparent view in my opinion is the most correct.
Concealing his glans, that is, the glans of the fornicator, and the glans is well known. "Entirely" is to exclude a part. If he does not have a glans, as in the case of one whose glans has been cut off, then its measure is in its place.
"In a female or male orifice" is well known and does not need explanation; in the female orifice, or the male orifice which is the exit of excrement.
"Original" is a description of the female or male orifice, and their opposite is the non-original ones. What are the non-original ones? The hermaphrodite regarding the female orifice is clear, but regarding the male orifice? Yes, perhaps there is a person, may Allah spare us, who has no male orifice. Ibn Qudamah (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned in al-Mughni that it was reported to him that in Syria there were three people, one of whom said he had an opening between the exit of urine and excrement, from which both urine and excrement come out, and he has no female orifice and no penis. Blessed is Allah, the best of creators. The second has no female orifice and no penis, but he has a swelling from which urine is expelled. Glory be to Allah. The third has nothing from his lower part, and when he eats food, if he wills, he vomits it up, and this vomiting is in the place of excrement and urine. These people are judged by the ruling of the ambiguous hermaphrodite regarding inheritance.
In any case, the female and male orifices must be original, to exclude the non-original ones, such as the orifice of the hermaphrodite and a male orifice in a place other than its proper location.
He said "Purely forbidden" This will be discussed, if Allah wills, in the second condition, because it is essentially the condition. But he said "of a living human being" meaning that this female or male orifice must be from a human being. If it is from a non-human, the hadd for zina is not obligatory, but what is obligatory? Discretionary punishment (ta'zir) as the imam sees fit. So if a person penetrates an animal, he is punished with ta'zir and the animal is killed. It is killed as a forbidden carcass. If the animal belonged to him, it is lost to him, and if it belonged to someone else, he must compensate its owner. It was said that one who has intercourse with an animal is killed, based on a hadith reported on this matter, in which the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said
and whoever has intercourse with an animal, kill him, and kill the animal.
من وجدتموه على بهيمة فاقتلوه واقتلوا البهيمة(5) And they who guard their private parts (6) Except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed - (7) But whoever seeks beyond that, then those are the transgressors -
والذين هم لفروجهم حافظون إلا على أزواجهم أو ما ملكت أيمانهم فإنهم غير ملومين فمن ابتغى وراء ذلك فأولئك هم العادونThe apparent statement of the author is that there is no difference between zina with those who are forbidden to marry and others. But the correct view is that zina with those who are forbidden to marry entails killing in all cases, based on an authentic hadith reported on this matter. Ibn al-Qayyim chose this in his book "The Sufficient Answer" that the one who commits zina with a woman who is forbidden to him is killed in all cases. For example, if he commits zina with his sister, may Allah protect us, or his aunt, or his maternal aunt, or his wife's mother, or his wife's daughter whom he has consummated the marriage with, or the like of that, he is killed in all cases, because this orifice is not lawful in any case, it is not lawful by contract or otherwise, from his mahram. And because this is a great sin, and a hadith was reported from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), also authentic, regarding the killing of one who has intercourse with a mahram from his mahrams. It is a narration from Ahmad and it is authentic: that the one who commits zina with those who are forbidden to marry is killed, even if he is not muhsan.
And his saying "of a living human being" is to exclude a dead person, meaning if he commits zina with a corpse, he is not given the hadd. Is this conceivable? It happens, yes, it happens, and it may happen. One person, I think, said it happens a lot, but I do not know about this frequency. The important thing is that if he commits zina with a dead woman, he is not given the hadd. Why? They said because the soul abhors it and dislikes it, so the natural deterrent is sufficient instead of the hadd. But he must be punished with ta'zir. Is the corpse punished with ta'zir? No, the corpse is not punished, but he is punished, may Allah protect us. It was said that the one who has intercourse with a corpse, committing zina with it, has two hadd punishments: he is given the hadd twice, once for the zina, and once for violating the sanctity of the corpse, because a living person may have desire and pleasure from her, unlike a corpse. So he is given the hadd twice. Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him), in one of the narrations, if it is not the last one, leans toward this, that he must have two hadd punishments, due to the ugliness of this matter, which is undoubtedly extremely ugly. At the very least, we should equate the corpse with the living person due to the generality of the evidence
The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse - lash each one of them with a hundred lashes
الزانية والزاني فاجلدوا كل واحد منهما مائة جلدةIf these five conditions are not met, the hadd is not obligatory for the perpetrator, but ta'zir is obligatory for him. If a man stayed with a woman and started kissing her, embracing her, and having intercourse between the thighs, and did everything except inserting the glans? There is no hadd, but he is subject to ta'zir, unless he comes as a repentant person, meaning to the judge. The judge has the choice: if he wishes, he establishes ta'zir on him, and if he wishes, he does not establish ta'zir on him, because it is established in the authentic hadith that a man came to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) informing him that he did everything with a woman except marriage. He said
Did you pray with us?
صليت معنا؟Indeed, good deeds do away with misdeeds
إن الحسنات يذهبن السيئاتOkay, the second condition is "the absence of doubt" ... "purely forbidden" is the second condition. In your view, it is "purely muhsan," apparently. "Purely muhsan"? No, the correct one is "purely forbidden." The correct one from the author's words is "purely forbidden." And in any case, there is no need for it, because the second condition, "the absence of doubt," suffices for it.