"And the muhsan here is the free Muslim, sane, chaste, committed person who has intercourse with his like, and reaching puberty is not a condition."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said "and the muhsan here", here meaning in the chapter of false accusation of adultery, and he qualified it with the word "here" to distinguish it from the muhsan in the chapter of unlawful sexual intercourse. Pay attention to this, because we have two types of muhsan. The first muhsan is in the chapter of unlawful sexual intercourse, which was mentioned previously. Who is the muhsan there? It is the one who had intercourse with his wife in a valid marriage, and both are adults, sane, and free. So, he is the adult, sane, free person who had intercourse with his wife in a valid marriage.
Now, here, he said "the muhsan here is the free", is this in agreement with the previous one?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It is in agreement, may Allah reward you, because he said "and both are adults, sane, and free." Freedom is a condition here and there. Now, "the Muslim" is a condition here but not there. For this reason, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) stoned the two Jews. So, they differ in this. "The sane" is a condition here and there. "The chaste" is a condition here but not there, or is it? There, if he was among the most wicked of people, indeed he is not chaste in reality because he committed unlawful sexual intercourse, or is he? Yet he would be considered a muhsan. So, these two—being Muslim and being chaste—differ, and they agree on freedom and sanity. Now, "the committed", this is actually unnecessary. It appears to me, and Allah knows best, that it is a slip by the author, because the condition of Islam suffices for the condition of being committed. Being committed is broader than being Muslim; being committed includes the Muslim and the dhimmi, or not? As mentioned previously. And here, the dhimmi is excluded by his saying "the Muslim". So, it appears that this is a mistake by the author, and for this reason he did not mention it in al-Iqna', nor in al-Muntaha, nor in al-Muqni', which is the original of the book. Yes. Now, he says "who has intercourse with his like", does this differ from the previous one or not? It differs, because there it requires both to be adults, so reaching puberty is a condition there, but here reaching puberty is not a condition. For this reason, the author said "and reaching puberty is not a condition". Let us see now: there, it is required that he has had intercourse with his wife in a valid marriage, but here it is not required. So, there are conditions considered there that are not considered here, and here there are conditions considered that are not considered there. Let us look now at what they agree on: Freedom? They agree. Sanity? They agree. Now, only two? Yes.
The muhsan here, in the context of false accusation of adultery, is distinguished by the conditions of Islam and chastity.
And there, we see that it is distinguished by the requirement that he must be an adult and that he must have had intercourse in a valid marriage, and be free, and be Muslim? So, Islam is not a condition there, but it is a condition here. Thus, that one is distinguished by two things, and this one is distinguished by two things.
Now, the author said "who has intercourse with his like", and he is ten years old and she is nine years old. So, if he falsely accuses a boy who has not reached ten years of age, he will not be given the hadd punishment. And if he falsely accuses a girl who has not completed nine years of age, she will not be given the hadd punishment, because he does not have intercourse with his like, so disgrace does not attach to him by that.
The questioner : ... ؟
The Shaykh : We agree on this. Yes. The author said "and falsely accusing a non-muhsan requires ta'zir". Let us see now: if he falsely accuses a slave, where the accuser is free and the accused is a slave? He is given ta'zir, is that right?
Falsely accusing a disbeliever, even if he is a dhimmi? He is given ta'zir. Falsely accusing a person accused of unlawful sexual intercourse? He is given ta'zir. The hadd is not established against him because he is not chaste. Falsely accusing a boy who does not have intercourse with his like? He is given ta'zir, because he has not reached the condition.
The questioner : What is the evidence for the condition of freedom?
The Shaykh : What is the evidence for the condition of freedom? Now, if someone says the verse is general[An-Nur 24:4], we say: but the free person is not called a muhsan in the terminology of the Shari'ah, I mean the slave, because the slave is not called a muhsan in the terminology of the Shari'ah. And on this basis, he is excluded from the restriction, not included, so he does not need evidence for his exclusion. But now, "the Muslim", what is the evidence for the condition that he must be Muslim? Because of His saying, the Exalted [An-Nur 24:4], no, that is not this verse. [An-Nur 24:23] And the punishment for those who are cursed in this world is the establishment of the hadd. And because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said Sahih Muslim 89. Now, what is the evidence for the condition of having intercourse with his like? He says: because one who does not have intercourse with his like is never disgraced, and people generally do not imagine unlawful sexual intercourse from him. And because one who is of this age is young, so he is not defiled, even if it is proven that he committed unlawful sexual intercourse, he is not defiled.
Now, here, he said "the muhsan here is the free", is this in agreement with the previous one?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It is in agreement, may Allah reward you, because he said "and both are adults, sane, and free." Freedom is a condition here and there. Now, "the Muslim" is a condition here but not there. For this reason, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) stoned the two Jews. So, they differ in this. "The sane" is a condition here and there. "The chaste" is a condition here but not there, or is it? There, if he was among the most wicked of people, indeed he is not chaste in reality because he committed unlawful sexual intercourse, or is he? Yet he would be considered a muhsan. So, these two—being Muslim and being chaste—differ, and they agree on freedom and sanity. Now, "the committed", this is actually unnecessary. It appears to me, and Allah knows best, that it is a slip by the author, because the condition of Islam suffices for the condition of being committed. Being committed is broader than being Muslim; being committed includes the Muslim and the dhimmi, or not? As mentioned previously. And here, the dhimmi is excluded by his saying "the Muslim". So, it appears that this is a mistake by the author, and for this reason he did not mention it in al-Iqna', nor in al-Muntaha, nor in al-Muqni', which is the original of the book. Yes. Now, he says "who has intercourse with his like", does this differ from the previous one or not? It differs, because there it requires both to be adults, so reaching puberty is a condition there, but here reaching puberty is not a condition. For this reason, the author said "and reaching puberty is not a condition". Let us see now: there, it is required that he has had intercourse with his wife in a valid marriage, but here it is not required. So, there are conditions considered there that are not considered here, and here there are conditions considered that are not considered there. Let us look now at what they agree on: Freedom? They agree. Sanity? They agree. Now, only two? Yes.
The muhsan here, in the context of false accusation of adultery, is distinguished by the conditions of Islam and chastity.
And there, we see that it is distinguished by the requirement that he must be an adult and that he must have had intercourse in a valid marriage, and be free, and be Muslim? So, Islam is not a condition there, but it is a condition here. Thus, that one is distinguished by two things, and this one is distinguished by two things.
Now, the author said "who has intercourse with his like", and he is ten years old and she is nine years old. So, if he falsely accuses a boy who has not reached ten years of age, he will not be given the hadd punishment. And if he falsely accuses a girl who has not completed nine years of age, she will not be given the hadd punishment, because he does not have intercourse with his like, so disgrace does not attach to him by that.
The questioner : ... ؟
The Shaykh : We agree on this. Yes. The author said "and falsely accusing a non-muhsan requires ta'zir". Let us see now: if he falsely accuses a slave, where the accuser is free and the accused is a slave? He is given ta'zir, is that right?
Falsely accusing a disbeliever, even if he is a dhimmi? He is given ta'zir. Falsely accusing a person accused of unlawful sexual intercourse? He is given ta'zir. The hadd is not established against him because he is not chaste. Falsely accusing a boy who does not have intercourse with his like? He is given ta'zir, because he has not reached the condition.
The questioner : What is the evidence for the condition of freedom?
The Shaykh : What is the evidence for the condition of freedom? Now, if someone says the verse is general