and is subject to discretionary punishment for the assault. There is no objection to one of the two fornicators receiving the prescribed punishment while the other does not. For example, if a man commits fornication with a girl who has not reached puberty, she is not subject to the prescribed punishment, whereas the man is.
His statement: “or if the woman is compelled to commit fornication.” His wording indicates that if the man is compelled, the prescribed punishment is imposed on him. An example is a man who owns a slave woman and sees an intelligent, young, handsome man, and says, “I want him to fornicate with her so that she may bear a son like him,” and then compels him to commit fornication. According to the madhhab, he is subject to the prescribed punishment.
They say: Compulsion in the case of a man is inconceivable, for intercourse cannot occur without an erection, and an erection cannot occur without willingness; willingness is consent, not compulsion. Since compulsion is inconceivable in his case, the prescribed punishment becomes obligatory for him. This is not contradicted by the hadith, “and that which they are compelled to do” (1), because they say that this man was not compelled; rather, he consented.
However, the sound view, without doubt, is that no prescribed punishment is imposed on him and that compulsion can indeed occur. A man may be told, “Commit fornication with this woman or we will kill you,” while she appears before him in beautiful clothing and is young and beautiful. This is among the strongest forms of compulsion. In any case, a human being is human. Thus, the correct view, without doubt, is that no prescribed punishment is imposed on him. If a case such as this does not constitute a doubt, then where is the doubt?! This is the genuine doubt: a man known to be a person