the lesser.

Furthermore, an erection can occur without any action on his part. Indeed, he may be bound and laid down, and a woman may touch him intimately, causing an erection, and then insert his penis into herself. According to the first view, what she demanded of him would not have been permissible for him under any circumstances. According to the second view, it may be argued that imprisonment does not constitute coercion that makes illicit intercourse permissible, unlike a situation in which he believes it most likely that they will kill him or destroy one of his limbs. The disagreement concerns only this latter situation, and they did not go to such lengths with him. Even if it were said that coercion made this permissible for him, he would nevertheless have forfeited what was better.

Furthermore, coercion occurs only the first time; thereafter, he engages in intercourse and retains desire and a willingness to commit the indecent act.

Those who say that coercion into illicit intercourse is inconceivable maintain that a distinction must be drawn between someone who takes no action himself—such as a man who is bound—and someone who actively participates. Likewise, if a woman is laid down and bound, and the indecent act is committed against her, she incurs no sin by unanimous agreement. If, however, she is coerced into engaging in illicit intercourse, there are two views, both reported from Ahmad. The majority, however, hold that she incurs no sin. This is supported by the words of Allah Most High:

“If anyone compels them, then Allah, after they have been compelled, is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”

These scholars say that the woman’s participation does not require an erection, so her case is comparable to being coerced into drinking wine, unlike the man’s participation. A fuller discussion of this belongs elsewhere.