"Or the woman was coerced into zina"

The Shaykh : He says, the author (may Allah have mercy on him) "Or the woman was coerced into zina", meaning that she is not subject to the hadd... until she committed zina with him, and may Allah protect us, is the hadd imposed on her?
The students: There is no hadd on her.

The Shaykh : There is no hadd on her, okay. And what about the one who coerced her?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Okay, okay, it is he who coerced her, my brothers.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : How is it that the hadd is obligatory on one, and not obligatory on the other?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : He is subject to the hadd. The one who coerced is subject to the hadd, without doubt. If it were said that he is subject to the hadd and ta'zir, that would be more appropriate. He is subject to the hadd for the zina and ta'zir for the aggression. The important point is that the one who coerced is subject to the hadd, and there is no doubt in that. There is no objection to the fact that the hadd may be carried out on one of the two who committed zina, and not on the other. If he committed zina with a woman who has not reached puberty? She is not subject to the hadd, and he is subject to the hadd, okay. "Or the woman was coerced", this is the explicit wording of the phrase: if a woman is coerced into zina, there is no hadd on her. And if a man is coerced into zina? That is, if one person coerced another person to commit zina with this slave woman. That is, a person had a slave woman and saw this intelligent, handsome young man and said, "I want you to commit zina with her so that you produce a child like him," may Allah protect us. He came to him and said, "You must commit zina with her, have intercourse with her." He said to him, "O son of the noble, this is haram." He said, "There is no choice, either this or the sword. Look, the sword is with me." Is he subject to the hadd or not? The madhhab says he is subject to the hadd. Look at the author's words; he did not say "or a person was coerced into zina." The author says "Or the woman was coerced into zina", and it is known from his words that if a man is coerced, the hadd is carried out on him. Why? They said that coercion is not conceivable in the case of a man. Why is it not conceivable? They said there is no intercourse without erection, right or not?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : And there is no erection without will. Erection is the rising of the penis, meaning. They say it is not possible to coerce a man into zina, because he cannot have intercourse without erection, and there is no erection without will. And is the will consent or coercion? Consent. Therefore, since coercion is not conceivable in his case, the hadd became obligatory on him. This does not contradict the hadith because they say this man was not coerced; in the end, he consented. But the stronger position, without doubt, is that there is no hadd on him and that coercion exists. A man is told, "Do this with this woman or we will kill you," and they bring her before him in beautiful clothes, and she is young and beautiful. It is possible that if he is exhausted, they take him, put him on top of her, and we say, "Is this not coercion?" This is the most intense form of coercion. And no matter how much a person is human, the correct view, without doubt, is that there is no hadd on him. And if this is not a case of doubt, where is the doubt? This is the true doubt. A man is known to be a pious person, far from evil, chaste, and no one can accuse him of anything. And one of the servants of Allah, one of the devils among humans, comes to him and coerces him to commit zina with a woman and threatens him with death, and he may kill him, and then he commits zina to remove the coercion, not out of desire for zina. And we say, "By Allah, the hadd must be carried out on him?" He has a wife and seven children and three daughters and a house. And then we stone him to death because he is not excused by this coercion, and he has committed zina in this situation. The correct view, without doubt, is that coercion is possible in the case of a man, and that a person is human, so if he is coerced into zina, there is no hadd on him. But the one who coerced is subject to the hadd for zina? He is subject to ta'zir, and not the hadd for zina, because he did not commit zina. If you say, "It was mentioned to us in qisas that if a person coerces another man to kill a person, the liability is on both of them, the one who coerced and the one who was coerced?" We say this is qisas, and for this reason, if a group conspires to kill a person, they are all killed. But if men conspire to commit zina with a woman, and only one commits zina, the hadd is carried out on the one who committed zina only. So there is a difference between this and that.