"And if a woman who has no husband and no master becomes pregnant, she is not to be subjected to the hadd for that alone"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then the author said "And if a woman becomes pregnant" This is the beginning of today's lesson. If a woman becomes pregnant, "woman" is an indefinite noun in the context of a condition, so it is general. A woman, whether she is free or a slave, is that right? Young or old...
"Who has no husband and no master" A woman who has no husband and no master does not become pregnant except through the intercourse of a forbidden person, by the saying of Allah the Exalted:[Al-Mu'minun 23:5-6], their wives are those who have a husband, or what their right hands possess are those who have a master. So if a woman who has no husband and no master becomes pregnant, we do not address her, nor do we ask where the pregnancy came from, nor do we question her. Why? Because questioning her spreads the scandal. And Allah Mighty and Majestic said: [An-Nur 24:19] If this warning is for those who love that the scandal be spread, how much more so for one who causes the scandal to be spread? Therefore, do not question her and do not subject her to the hadd, even if she becomes pregnant every year and gives birth to a child until she has ten children without a husband or master, we do not address her. What is the reason? I said because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: , and this hadith, as mentioned before, is a weak hadith. But they say the original state is innocence and safety. Do not question her because questioning her is a cause for what? For the spread of the scandal. And Allah has warned those who love that the scandal be spread. Therefore, she is left alone. Do you understand?
This is what the author mentioned, and it is the madhhab (school of jurisprudence), and it is one of three opinions. Glory to Allah the Great, you hardly find an issue without scholarly disagreement in it.
The second opinion is that it is obligatory for her to be subjected to the hadd unless she claims a doubt.
The third opinion is that it is obligatory for her to be subjected to the hadd even if she claims a doubt.
Pay attention. The first opinion, which says it is not obligatory for her to be subjected to the hadd and she is not to be questioned, do you understand? Its evidence.
The second opinion, which says she is to be subjected to the hadd unless she claims a doubt. The doubt is, for example, if she claims she was raped, or something similar to that from matters in which it is difficult, or if she claims she found something and inserted it into her vagina, and it was a man's semen, and she became pregnant with it, or something similar to that. The point is that if she claims a possible doubt, she is not subjected to the hadd.
The argument for this opinion is that they say because the Commander of the Faithful 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) addressed the people on the minbar of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and he said, among other things: "Indeed, stoning is a right established for one who commits zina if he is a married person, if the evidence is established, or if there is pregnancy, or if there is confession" How many did he mention for its establishment? Three: either the evidence is established by four men with the known conditions, or there is pregnancy, or there is confession. And this was said by the Commander of the Faithful 'Umar, he said it on the minbar of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and he said it in the presence of the Companions, and it was not mentioned that anyone opposed him or differed with him. And something like this is among the strongest proofs. If it does not reach the level of consensus, it is like consensus. And it is the choice of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), and it is the truth without doubt. From where does a child originate in the original state? From intercourse. This is the original state. That a woman might find cotton with a man's fluid in it and insert it into her vagina, yes, and then this sperm moves to her womb and she becomes pregnant, this is a far-fetched thing. And if we said there is no hadd, evil and corruption would spread. Every prostitute would give birth every year, and it would be said, do not question her, leave her until she comes and confesses to zina, and at that time the hadd is established against her. So the correct opinion, which is certain without doubt, is what Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah held, whose evidence is among the strongest proofs, and it is the sermon of the Commander of the Faithful 'Umar on the minbar of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and no one denied it.
So in it, there is evidence and there is a reason.
As for the saying of the jurists (may Allah have mercy on them) that this is from the category of doubts and hadd punishments are averted by doubts, we say first, by rejecting the first premise, which is that it is from the doubts. Where is the doubt in a woman who became pregnant? The original state is that she did not become pregnant except from intercourse. And intercourse, if she is not one who has a husband or a master, we have no option but that it is forbidden, unless she claims a doubt.
And secondly, the hadith is weak, the one they used as evidence. And if we accepted every doubt, even if it was a weak doubt like a spark in the middle of ashes, we would say we agree with the opinion of those who say that if a man hires a woman to commit zina with him and he commits zina with her, there is no hadd on him. In an opinion of the scholars, it is said, he hired a woman for zina and committed zina with her, so there is no hadd on him. Strange. Why? They said because the hiring is a doubt for the permissibility of intercourse with her in exchange for the wage. And by Allah, no one wants zina except that he reaches zina by such a method with great ease. Or not? It is a strange thing.
The intention is that a mere doubt, even if it is like a spark in the middle of ashes, is not correct, and it is not possible to ... with it the rulings, otherwise the conditions of people would be corrupted.
As for the third opinion, which says she is to be subjected to the hadd even if she claims a doubt, they say that by her pregnancy, her zina is established by virtue of the hadith of 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him). And the original state is the absence of coercion, so let her bring evidence for what she claimed of doubt, otherwise it is obligatory to act according to the apparent state of affairs.
And this is a stronger reasoning than the reasoning of the first opinion, which says she is not to be subjected to the hadd. And yet, it is a defective reasoning that does not stand as a proof, and it is not possible for us to destroy souls by it, because if she was a married woman, it would be obligatory that she be stoned for that alone.
It remains to be said that the reasoning of the jurists, their saying that questioning her is from the category of spreading the scandal, what do we answer to it? We say that we will not question her, but we will establish the hadd against her without questioning, until she claims what would avert the hadd.
So the ways of establishing zina in this report are four: testimony, confession, pregnancy of one who has no husband or master, and in li'an if the husband's li'an is completed and she does not oppose him.
"Who has no husband and no master" A woman who has no husband and no master does not become pregnant except through the intercourse of a forbidden person, by the saying of Allah the Exalted:
(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 -
والذين هم لفروجهم حافظون إلا على أزواجهم أو ما ملكت أيمانهم فإنهم غير ملومينIndeed, those who like that immorality should be spread [or publicized] among those who have believed will have a painful punishment in this world and the Hereafter
إن الذين يحبون أن تشيع الفاحشة في الذين آمنوا لهم عذاب أليم في الدنيا والآخرةWard off the hudud (fixed Qur'anic punishments) by means of shubhah (a doubtful matter)
ادرؤوا الحدود بالشبهاتThis is what the author mentioned, and it is the madhhab (school of jurisprudence), and it is one of three opinions. Glory to Allah the Great, you hardly find an issue without scholarly disagreement in it.
The second opinion is that it is obligatory for her to be subjected to the hadd unless she claims a doubt.
The third opinion is that it is obligatory for her to be subjected to the hadd even if she claims a doubt.
Pay attention. The first opinion, which says it is not obligatory for her to be subjected to the hadd and she is not to be questioned, do you understand? Its evidence.
The second opinion, which says she is to be subjected to the hadd unless she claims a doubt. The doubt is, for example, if she claims she was raped, or something similar to that from matters in which it is difficult, or if she claims she found something and inserted it into her vagina, and it was a man's semen, and she became pregnant with it, or something similar to that. The point is that if she claims a possible doubt, she is not subjected to the hadd.
The argument for this opinion is that they say because the Commander of the Faithful 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) addressed the people on the minbar of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and he said, among other things: "Indeed, stoning is a right established for one who commits zina if he is a married person, if the evidence is established, or if there is pregnancy, or if there is confession" How many did he mention for its establishment? Three: either the evidence is established by four men with the known conditions, or there is pregnancy, or there is confession. And this was said by the Commander of the Faithful 'Umar, he said it on the minbar of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and he said it in the presence of the Companions, and it was not mentioned that anyone opposed him or differed with him. And something like this is among the strongest proofs. If it does not reach the level of consensus, it is like consensus. And it is the choice of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), and it is the truth without doubt. From where does a child originate in the original state? From intercourse. This is the original state. That a woman might find cotton with a man's fluid in it and insert it into her vagina, yes, and then this sperm moves to her womb and she becomes pregnant, this is a far-fetched thing. And if we said there is no hadd, evil and corruption would spread. Every prostitute would give birth every year, and it would be said, do not question her, leave her until she comes and confesses to zina, and at that time the hadd is established against her. So the correct opinion, which is certain without doubt, is what Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah held, whose evidence is among the strongest proofs, and it is the sermon of the Commander of the Faithful 'Umar on the minbar of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and no one denied it.
So in it, there is evidence and there is a reason.
As for the saying of the jurists (may Allah have mercy on them) that this is from the category of doubts and hadd punishments are averted by doubts, we say first, by rejecting the first premise, which is that it is from the doubts. Where is the doubt in a woman who became pregnant? The original state is that she did not become pregnant except from intercourse. And intercourse, if she is not one who has a husband or a master, we have no option but that it is forbidden, unless she claims a doubt.
And secondly, the hadith is weak, the one they used as evidence. And if we accepted every doubt, even if it was a weak doubt like a spark in the middle of ashes, we would say we agree with the opinion of those who say that if a man hires a woman to commit zina with him and he commits zina with her, there is no hadd on him. In an opinion of the scholars, it is said, he hired a woman for zina and committed zina with her, so there is no hadd on him. Strange. Why? They said because the hiring is a doubt for the permissibility of intercourse with her in exchange for the wage. And by Allah, no one wants zina except that he reaches zina by such a method with great ease. Or not? It is a strange thing.
The intention is that a mere doubt, even if it is like a spark in the middle of ashes, is not correct, and it is not possible to ... with it the rulings, otherwise the conditions of people would be corrupted.
As for the third opinion, which says she is to be subjected to the hadd even if she claims a doubt, they say that by her pregnancy, her zina is established by virtue of the hadith of 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him). And the original state is the absence of coercion, so let her bring evidence for what she claimed of doubt, otherwise it is obligatory to act according to the apparent state of affairs.
And this is a stronger reasoning than the reasoning of the first opinion, which says she is not to be subjected to the hadd. And yet, it is a defective reasoning that does not stand as a proof, and it is not possible for us to destroy souls by it, because if she was a married woman, it would be obligatory that she be stoned for that alone.
It remains to be said that the reasoning of the jurists, their saying that questioning her is from the category of spreading the scandal, what do we answer to it? We say that we will not question her, but we will establish the hadd against her without questioning, until she claims what would avert the hadd.
So the ways of establishing zina in this report are four: testimony, confession, pregnancy of one who has no husband or master, and in li'an if the husband's li'an is completed and she does not oppose him.