Islamic Fiqh > Penalties (hudud) > Fornication: proof, conditions and punishment > The conditions of the punishment of fornication
Contents
Updated on 27 September 2026 at 3:52 AM
The sheets on this page set out the conditions the jurists require for establishing the punishment of zina, apart from ihsan treated elsewhere: penetration of the glans, legal liability, knowledge of the prohibition, absence of coercion, penetration in the vagina, then the cases of liwat and sihaq and of the man who hires a woman's services.
Every ruling is reported as the sheet attributes it, with the Quranic references, the cited hadiths and their grade, and the books mentioned.
The scholars agreed: if a man penetrates a woman who is not lawful to him and makes his glans disappear, that is, the exposed part of the penis after circumcision, into the vagina, he has committed zina and the punishment applies even without emission, once the other conditions are met. If a man and an unrelated woman are found under one blanket and nothing else is known of them, the punishment does not apply. The sheet recalls the questioning of Ma'iz: did you penetrate her until your member disappeared in her, like a kohl stick in its jar and a rope in a well? (a hadith the sheet grades weak, reported by Abu Dawud (4428) and Ibn Hibban (4399)).
A man came to the Messenger of Allah and said: I found a woman in the orchard and I did with her everything one does, except that I did not penetrate her; deal with me as you wish. The Messenger of Allah stayed silent, then called him back and recited to him: "Perform the prayer at the two ends of the day and the approaches of the night: good deeds drive away evil deeds. That is a reminder for the mindful." A man asked: Messenger of Allah, is this for him alone or for all people? He said: for all people.
reported by Abu Dawud (4468), Ahmad (4325) and Sa'id ibn Mansur (1102)
The sheet also mentions the version of al-Bukhari (4410) and Muslim (2763): a man had only kissed a woman, and the verse of good deeds was recited to him, the Prophet adding: for whoever did it among my community. Imam al-Shafi'i said: the generality of people do not differ that the zina carrying the punishment is intercourse, without emission being required, and that whoever makes his glans disappear in a woman's vagina incurs the punishment. Imam Ibn Hazm said: they agreed that a single penetration by the glans alone carries the punishment. Imam an-Nawawi said: the criterion of intercourse is, by agreement, the disappearance of the glans of a sound member; if the whole member disappears, all the rulings attach, but the disappearance of the whole member is not required; if only part of the glans disappears, nothing attaches by agreement, apart from an aberrant view that treats it like the whole glans and that is a rejected error. If the member is cut and less than the glans remains, no ruling attaches; if what remains equals the glans, it suffices; if more remains, two views: the sounder is that the rulings attach to the measure of the glans remaining in it.
The jurists agree: a child who commits zina or an insane person who commits zina undergoes no punishment, both being outside legal liability. Ibn Qudamah adds: the male and female slave undergo fifty lashes, virgin or previously married, in the view of most jurists; and in Ibn 'Abbas's view a slave girl incurs it only once married, he who said: the slave girl has no punishment until she has married.
The jurists differ over the sane adult who commits zina with a minor, male or female, or with an insane person. The majority (Hanafis, Malikis except Ibn al-Qasim, Shafi'is and Hanbalis of the madhhab) stated that whoever penetrates a little girl unable to bear penetration incurs no punishment; Ibn al-Qasim of the Malikis and the Hanbalis in one view impose it on him. If the little girl can bear penetration like her peers, or if he penetrates an insane woman, the punishment applies against him alone, by all of them.
The Hanafis say: the sane adult who commits zina with a little girl or an insane woman incurs the punishment without them, if he can have intercourse with her like; if not, no punishment. Al-Kasani said: there is no disagreement that the sane adult who commits zina with a little girl or an insane woman incurs the punishment and that they do not. The Malikis say: if she allows intercourse as is usual with her kind, even if others could not, the punishment applies though she is not liable; and Ibn al-Qasim said she is punished even at five years. Likewise if a sane man commits zina with an insane woman: the punishment applies against him, for what removes the punishment from one party for a cause specific to it does not remove it from the other.
The Shafi'is say: if an adult commits zina with a little girl, or a sane man with an insane woman, or an awake man with a sleeping woman, or a willing man with a coerced woman, or a man who knows the prohibition with a woman ignorant of it, the punishment applies to the man and not the woman, for he belongs to those liable to it; and if a hostile man under safe-conduct commits zina with a Muslim woman, the punishment applies to the woman and not the man, for she belongs to those liable to it. The Hanbalis say: the sane adult who penetrates a little girl who can be penetrated like her peers incurs the punishment without dispute; if she cannot, Ahmad's text suggests the punishment in one view, while the other view, which is the madhhab, is no punishment; the qadi said: no punishment against whoever penetrates a little girl under nine, nor against the woman who inserts the member of a boy under ten. Ibn Qudamah holds: as soon as he penetrates the one who can bear his penetration, the punishment applies. Al-Mirdawi said: the sane woman who gives herself to an insane man or a small child incurs the punishment without dispute in the first case; if she gives herself to a small boy not liable, she incurs it in the correct view, others restricting it to a boy of ten. In short: the woman who gives herself to a man not punishable for ignorance, to a hostile man under safe-conduct, or inserts the member of a sleeper, incurs the punishment.
The generality of scholars holds: knowledge that zina is forbidden is a condition of the punishment being due; whoever committed it without knowing it incurs no punishment, since the ruling in religious matters stands only after knowledge. The sheet cites the story of the black slave girl brought to Umar, whom he asked whether she knew what she was doing; Uthman said she took her act lightly and that Allah's punishment targets only one who knows Allah's command, and Umar approved. It also cites Umar's letter about a man who confessed to having committed zina the night before while declaring he did not know Allah had forbidden it: have him swear to his ignorance and then release him (a report the sheet grades weak, transmitted by al-Bayhaqi (16843)). And the account of Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib: inform him of the prohibition; if he knew, punish him, otherwise inform him and punish him if he repeats it.
Abu Ja'far at-Tahawi said: the punishment does not apply to one ignorant of the prohibition, and no Companion is known to have disagreed, by "We never punished until We sent a messenger" (surah al-Isra 15): chastisement by the way of hearing follows only the establishment of the proof of the prohibition; the punishments are sanctions against violating the sanctities, and one who did not know their sanctity did not violate them. Imam al-Mawardi said: the one who does not know the prohibition despite the apparent text and the consensus is of three kinds: the insane person recovered after puberty who committed zina at that moment, the new Muslim who does not know its rulings, and the man come from a distant land where the prohibition did not appear. If the fornicator claims ignorance, he is examined: if he belongs to these three, his word is accepted, the oath being required of him only as a precaution; otherwise his word is refused. Ibn Qudamah cites Umar, Uthman and 'Ali: no punishment except against one who knows it; the claim is accepted from the new Muslim and the man raised in the steppes, refused from one raised among Muslims and scholars; and the claim of ignorance of the corruption of an invalid marriage is accepted, as Umar accepted the claim of ignorance about marriage during the waiting period.
The scholars agreed: a woman coerced into zina incurs no punishment, by the Prophet's word: Allah has lifted from my community error, forgetfulness and what they did under coercion (an authentic hadith by the sheet). The sheet cites the hadith of Wa'il ibn Hujr: a woman was coerced in the time of the Messenger of Allah, and he warded the punishment off her and established it against the one who did it (a hadith the sheet grades weak, reported by at-Tirmidhi (1453)). Imam at-Tirmidhi said: the practice, by the scholars among the Companions and others, is that the coerced woman incurs no punishment. Imam Ibn Battal said: the scholars agree that a coerced woman incurs no punishment; they differed over the dower: 'Ata and az-Zuhri grant it to her, and Malik, al-Shafi'i, Ahmad, Ishaq and Abu Thawr say so; ash-Sha'bi said that if the punishment is established against the man, the dower lapses, and the Kufans say so. Imam Ibn 'Abd al-Barr said: the scholars agreed on the punishment against the coercer and rapist if proof is established against him or he confesses; otherwise he undergoes a correction; and no correction against her if her coercion is established, which is known by her screams, her cries for help, her weeping, and for a virgin by the blood; without any of this, if pregnancy appears and she claims coercion, the scholars have differed. Imam Ibn Rushd said: there is no disagreement that the coerced woman incurs no punishment; the disagreement bears on the dower: compensation for the sex or a gift reserved to wives. Imam al-Qurtubi said: the scholars agree that the coerced woman incurs no punishment.
The sheet opens its treatment with precedents: it is reported from Abd al-Jabbar ibn Wa'il, from his father, that a woman was coerced in the Prophet's time and he warded off her punishment (transmitted by al-Athram); that slave girls of the emir were brought to Umar, coerced by pages, and he had the pages flogged without touching the slave girls; and that a woman was brought to Umar who declared she had fallen asleep and woken with a man crouched over her: he released her without flogging her, for this is a doubt and the punishments are warded off by doubts, with no difference between coercion by force and coercion by threat of death. It reports Ahmad's view on the shepherd who demanded access to a thirsty woman in exchange for water: she is compelled; and Umar's account, who gave the woman something and left her, on 'Ali's view: she is compelled.
The jurists differ over the man coerced into zina: is the punishment established against him? Abu Hanifah: if coerced by other than a sovereign, he is punished; by a sovereign, no punishment, though analogy would lead to it: he abandoned it because coercion is inconceivable in zina, the act being possible only with erection, which does not occur in fear but in pleasure and free choice, so that he would have committed zina of his own will; not so the woman, in whom only the enabling occurs, which is why she is not punished. The meaning is twofold: if it is the caliph, he has forfeited authority by committing zina thus; if one below him, the sovereign being charged with reaching the averting of the punishment, his coercion aims at the very establishment of the punishment, which he therefore cannot establish. The sheet reports al-Jassas's objection (erection does not prevent abstaining, as in wine) and the answer (custom is that fear for the soul contradicts erection, and the visible state counts as a confession, like one who confesses apostatizing willingly under apparent coercion). Al-Shafi'i of the madhhab, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad by the operative ruling, the Malikis in the view of the verifiers like al-Lakhmi, Ibn Rushd and Ibn al-'Arabi, and the Hanbalis in a narration Ibn Qudamah authenticated: the man coerced into zina incurs no punishment like the woman, by the word: ward off the punishments by doubts (a hadith the sheet grades weak, reported by Ibn 'Asakir in his History of Damascus), coercion being among the greatest doubts; whatever the coerced woman escapes, the coerced man escapes, like theft and drinking. The sheet reports the Hanafi answer: desire is rooted in nature and cannot be repelled; only the soul's submission can be repelled by religion or precaution; the coercion therefore bears on the act and not the desire, and the punishment targets only the act. Al-Haddad reports Abu Hanifah's two views on the sovereign: the punishment, as Zufar holds; or no punishment with a correction and the dower due, for one cannot oppose the sovereign nor complain of him elsewhere; and the great Bazdawi says the sovereign's coercion equals murder. Abu Yusuf and Muhammad: no punishment but a correction and the dower, whether he is coerced by a sovereign or another, since erection comes from nature without his choice; if he is coerced by imprisonment or bonds with no mortal danger, he has no right to comply, and if he complies the punishment applies. The Malikis in the widespread view, the Shafi'is in the view opposed to the soundest, and the Hanbalis of the madhhab: the punishment applies, for the act occurs only through erection, which contradicts coercion; al-Khurashi says this is the madhhab, and ad-Dardir that it is the widespread one, in every state, even if she coerced him; in the latter case she has no dower from him, otherwise he owes her the dower and it is recovered from her coercer. The point of disagreement: if he coerced him onto her while she was willing, without husband or master; otherwise the punishment applies by agreement, in consideration of the husband's or master's right.
The jurists differ over the man who penetrates a woman in the anus: is the punishment established? Abu Hanifah: no punishment, but a correction and prison, for he has committed a wrong act: this act is not zina in the language, as the formula he entered her anally without committing zina shows, and the lexicographers distinguish them; the hadith: when a man comes to a man, both commit zina, is metaphorical and means the sin (a hadith the sheet grades weak, reported by al-Bayhaqi in his Sunan al-Kubra (16810)), likewise: when a woman comes to a woman; and Allah named this act an indecency as every grave disobedience, in "do not approach indecencies, whether apparent or hidden" (surah al-An'am 151). The act is below the act in the vagina for two reasons: the punishment is deterrent, and each doer's nature calls to the act in the vagina; and the punishment guards the marriage bed, which only vaginal intercourse corrupts through offspring, by his word: the child of zina is the worst of the three (an authentic hadith, reported by Abu Dawud (3963)). The majority (Abu Yusuf and Muhammad, the Malikis, the Shafi'is of the madhhab and the Hanbalis): whoever penetrates an unrelated woman in the anus is like the fornicator and the punishment applies to both: stoning if married, one hundred lashes otherwise, and if one is married he is stoned while the other is flogged. Their arguments: this act is a zina falling under the text of the punishment, and as to the name it is an indecency by the text in "do you come to the indecency?" (surah al-A'raf 80); as to the meaning, zina is the entry of the member into a forbidden place without doubt for the flow of the seed, and the vagina and the anus are both parts covered by the Law, desired by nature, whose heat and softness do not differ, to the point that ablution is due for entry into either place; and there is no doubt about the total absence of ownership here, more evident still than there, which is not an analogy but the application of the text once the equality of all the meanings is established.
Liwat in the Law is men penetrating men in the anus, or a man penetrating a man by inserting the glans or its measure into his anus. The scholars agreed that liwat, the penetration of a male by a male with the glans disappearing in the anus, is forbidden and among the gravest sins: Allah named it an indecency in "And Lot, when he said to his people: do you come to the indecency none among the worlds has committed before you? You approach men with desire instead of women. You are indeed an insolent people" (surah an-Naml 80 and 81), and "My Lord has forbidden only the indecencies, what appears of them and what is hidden" (surah al-A'raf 33), and in "Do you approach the males of the worlds and leave what your Lord created for you as spouses? You are a transgressing people" (surah ash-Shu'ara 165 and 166), where Allah rebuked them and called them transgressors; and Allah punished this act in this world as He punished no other sin, when He turned the town upside down upon its people (surah Hud 82). The sheet also cites the report of Hudhayfah: Jibril lifted their land until the people of the lowest heaven heard the barking of their dogs, lit a fire beneath them and turned them over into it; and the report of Mu'awiya ibn Qurrah: Jibril said that his strength carried him to tear the cities of Lot's people from the lowest earth, four cities of four hundred thousand fighting men each, and to hurl them into the air until the people of heaven heard the clamor of the poultry and the barking of the dogs.
Ibn 'Abbas reported that the Prophet said: May Allah curse the one who does the deed of the people of Lot; may Allah curse the one who does the deed of the people of Lot; may Allah curse the one who does the deed of the people of Lot; and he said it three times.
reported by Ahmad (2915), an-Nasa'i in al-Kubra (7337) and al-Hakim (8052), authentic hadith
The jurists differ over the ruling on whoever commits the deed of the people of Lot: is a punishment established? Which one? And by what manner is he killed? Abu Hanifah: no punishment, but a correction and prison; it is not zina, given the Companions' divergence over its sanction (the burning carried out by Khalid on Abu Bakr's order, the demolition of the wall, the toppling from a height), and it does not entail the loss of lineage; it is a wrong act with no fixed punishment. The two companions Abu Yusuf and Muhammad, the Shafi'is of the madhhab and the Hanbalis of the madhhab: its ruling is that of zina and the punishment applies to both: stoning if married, one hundred lashes and exile otherwise, and if one is married he is stoned while the other is flogged and exiled, by the hadith: when a man comes to a man, both commit zina (a hadith the sheet grades weak, reported by al-Bayhaqi in his Sunan al-Kubra (16810)), the Prophet having named it zina. What is reported from the Companions is carried as applying to the married one. The Malikis, the Shafi'is in one view and the Hanbalis in a narration: both are put to death in every state, married or not, without regard to ihsan: if both are of age, they are stoned together; if not, no stoning; if the doer is of age and the other is not, the doer is stoned; if the doer is not of age and the other is, the doer is not stoned by all of them, and the Malikis differ over the other: stoned in one view, not in the other. Their proof of death in every state is the hadith: whoever you find doing the deed of the people of Lot, kill the two (an authentic hadith, reported by Abu Dawud (4462), at-Tirmidhi (1455) and Ibn Majah (2561)), and the Companions' consensus on the killing, their divergence bearing only on the manner.
The sheet cites the reported modes: Khalid found on the outskirts of the Arabs a man who was married like a woman and wrote to Abu Bakr, who consulted the Companions; 'Ali was firmest: only one nation committed this sin and you know what Allah did to it; I see that he be burned, and Abu Bakr wrote to Khalid, who burned him, and Ibn az-Zubayr did the same in his governorship; 'Ali burned a doer of liwat and is also reported saying: he is stoned; Ibn 'Abbas has two narrations: stoning, or that the tallest wall of the town is sought, the culprit cast headlong from it and followed with stones; Abu Bakr said: a wall is thrown upon him: consensus on the killing, divergence on the manner. Malik said: whoever does that with a little boy is stoned and the boy is not; two adults are stoned together, married or not; and there is no stoning without four witnesses who saw them like a kohl stick in its jar, married or virgin. On the manner, the Malikis hold stoning; the Shafi'is have three views: stoning, as an aggravation; the demolition of a wall upon him or casting him from a height, after the punishment of Lot's people; the soundest: the sword, like the apostate, the absolute in the hadith referring to the sword. The vizier Ibn Hubayrah said: they agreed that the proof of liwat is only established by four witnesses like zina, except Abu Hanifah: two witnesses suffice.
Imam Ibn al-Qayyim said: since the corruption of liwat is among the greatest corruptions, its punishment in this world and the next is among the greatest punishments. People have differed: is it more severely punished than zina, less, or equally? Three views. Abu Bakr as-Siddiq, 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, Khalid ibn al-Walid, Abdallah ibn az-Zubayr, Abdallah ibn 'Abbas, Jabir ibn Zayd, Ubaydallah ibn Abdallah ibn Ma'mar, az-Zuhri, Rabi'ah ibn Abi Abd ar-Rahman, Malik, Ishaq ibn Rahawayh, Ahmad in the soundest narrations and al-Shafi'i in one of his two views: its punishment is heavier than zina's, namely death in every state. 'Ata ibn Abi Rabah, al-Hasan al-Basri, Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, Ibrahim an-Nakha'i, Qatadah, al-Awza'i, al-Shafi'i in the apparent sense of his madhhab, Ahmad in the second narration, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad: equal to the fornicator's. Al-Hakam and Abu Hanifah: a lesser punishment, the correction; because it is a disobedience for which Allah and His Messenger fixed no penalty, so the correction applies as with carrion; because it is intercourse in a place nature does not desire, Allah having formed it in revulsion from it even in beasts; because he is not called a fornicator in language, Law or custom, so he does not enter the texts of the fornicator's punishment; because the Law sets a punishment only where nature demands the act, as in zina, theft and wine, not carrion and blood; because there is no punishment for intercourse with a beast or a corpse, nature recoiling from the man's act with his like more strongly; and because one of the two incurs nothing for an act with his own kind, like the two women. The holders of the first view, who are the majority of the community and who report the Companions' consensus, answer: no disobedience carries a greater corruption than this one, which follows the corruption of unbelief and sometimes exceeds that of killing; Allah tried no one with this sin before Lot's people and punished them with a unique punishment, overturning their dwellings and raining stones of baked clay on them; the death of the one submitted is better for him than the act, and Allah made the killer's punishment subject to the heir's choice while making the death of the doer of liwat obligatory, which the Sunna states plainly and the Companions practiced. Ibn al-Qayyim then shows from the Quran the difference between the two acts: zina is named an indefinite indecency, liwat is named the indecency par excellence none before you committed; the desire for males is denounced as against nature, they were called insolent, evil and iniquitous, corrupters and wrongdoers; the Prophet cursed their doers three times without cursing any others three times, and the Companions agreed on the killing with no two of them differing over it; he finally recalls the story of Lot's guests and the warning: "and it is not far from the wrongdoers" (surah Hud 83), then closes with a warning in verse to those of this community who would commit the same deed, each partner being punished through the other as they shared the fault.
Sihaq is a woman's approaching a woman like herself by rubbing her private part against hers. The scholars agreed on its prohibition, by the hadith: when a woman comes to a woman, both are fornicatresses (a hadith the sheet grades weak, reported by al-Bayhaqi in his Sunan al-Kubra (16810)), meaning the sin without the punishment; and the report of Wathilah ibn al-Asqa': sihaq is zina among the women (reported by Ibn Hazm in al-Muhalla, who weakened it). Imam Ibn Hazm said: they agreed that sihaq is forbidden and that no punishment applies to any of it. Imam Ibn Qudamah said: if two women rub against each other, both are fornicatresses, accursed; no punishment against them, for it involves no penetration and resembles contact without intercourse; they incur a correction, like a man's contact with a woman without intercourse.
The jurists differ over the man who hires a woman to commit zina with her, or hires her for a service and then commits zina with her: is the punishment established against both? Abu Hanifah: no punishment against either, for it is intercourse upon a corrupt contract, analogous to the other invalid marriages. As-Sarakhsi reports the two accounts on which Abu Hanifah relies from Umar: the thirsty woman who yielded to the shepherd, whose punishment Umar averted; and the woman who asked a man for money and he refused to give until she gave herself to him: Umar averted the punishment and said: this is her dower; and dower and wage are close, Allah having named the dower a wage in "give them their wages" (surah an-Nisa 24); if a man says: I gave you such a dower to commit zina with you, there is no punishment. The language does not name zina the intercourse that follows a contract, and the doubt bars the punishment, as it bars the punishment of the pilferer whose act is not theft in the language. The Fatawa al-Hindiyya reports: whoever hires a woman to commit zina, or says take these dirhams so I may enter you, or make room for me, and she complies: no punishment; an-Nazm adds: she has the dower of her like, and both undergo a correction and prison until they repent; and if he gives her money without condition, both undergo the punishment; if he says: take these dirhams so I may enjoy you, enjoyment having been from the start the cause of the permission, the doubt remains; and if he says: I gave you such a dower to commit zina with you, there is no punishment, as al-Kafi says. The majority (Malikis, Shafi'is, Hanbalis and Abu Yusuf with Muhammad): the punishment applies to both, for the contract has no effect on the lawfulness of intercourse, hiring not being a path to making the sex lawful; the contract is void as if he had hired her to cook or bake, and intercourse in a place outside ownership carries the punishment by the generality of the verse and the reports; a change of state does not remove it, as if she died. Ibn Hubayrah summarizes: al-Shafi'i, Malik and Ahmad say he incurs the punishment, Abu Hanifah that he does not. Ibn Qudamah said: if he hires a woman for a task and then commits zina with her, or hires her to commit zina and does so, or commits zina and then marries her or buys her, the punishment applies to both, and most scholars say so. Abu Hanifah answers that ownership of her service is a doubt that would bar the punishment, and one is not punished for intercourse with a woman he owns; the sheet replies: the generality of the verse and the reports opposes that, lawful intercourse with a woman in his possession was not punishable while unlawful intercourse with the stranger is: her change of state does not remove it, as if she died.
These conditions draw the boundary the Law traces around the punishment of zina: without established penetration, without legal liability, without knowledge of the prohibition, without free will, or in a doubtful act, the punishment is not established and gives way to correction. The sheets also show that the schools differ over the cases of liwat and sihaq while agreeing on their prohibition: the reader finds there a complete picture of the conditions, the disagreements and their causes, with nothing added to the reported positions.