more deserving of being banished from the midst of the Muslims and expelled from their company. For an effeminate man has a corrupting influence on both men and women. When he imitates women, women may associate with him and learn from him, although he is a man, and he thus corrupts them. When men become attracted to him, they may turn away from women. Moreover, when a woman sees a man adopting feminine ways, she may herself adopt masculine ways and imitate men, associating with both sexes. She may choose intercourse with women just as he chooses intercourse with men.

As for his corrupting men, it consists in allowing them to do with him what they do with women—by looking at him, having intimate contact with him, and becoming infatuated with him. If he is expelled from among the people and travels to another inhabited town, where he finds someone who commits sexual indecency with him, then his banishment in this case takes the form of confinement in a place where no one else is with him. If there is a fear that he will leave, he is to be restrained, for this is what banishing him and removing him from among the people means.

For this reason, scholars have differed over what it means to banish a brigand from the land: does it mean driving him away so that he finds refuge in no town, imprisoning him, or applying either measure as the ruler sees fit? There are three opinions reported from Ahmad on this question. The third is the fairest and best. Banishing him so that he finds refuge in no town is impracticable, because the population is dispersed and people differ in their inclinations. Indeed, expelling him may lead him to engage in highway robbery. Imprisoning him may also be impracticable, since it requires expenditure on food, drink, and a guard. There is no doubt that banishment is easier, if it is possible.