For the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, cursed those who commit the act of the people of Lot. It is also authentically reported from him in the Sahīh that he cursed effeminate men and women who imitate men, and said:
“Expel them from your homes.”
How, then, can a woman be permitted to marry an effeminate man whose sexual desire has shifted to his anus? He is penetrated as a woman is penetrated, and his desire to penetrate diminishes, just as a man who commits unlawful intercourse with someone other than his wife loses his desire for her. If he has no protective jealousy concerning himself, his protective jealousy concerning his wife and others diminishes. Hence, an effeminate man may have little protective jealousy concerning his child, his slave or anyone in his care.
If a woman accepts an effeminate man or a man who commits the act of the people of Lot, she follows his way and thus becomes guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse—and worse still. For it is easier for a woman to submit to intercourse than for a man to submit to being penetrated. If she accepts such conduct in her husband, she accepts it in herself.
The wording of this verse, namely the words of the Most High:
“A man guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse marries none but a woman guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse,”
and the remainder of the verse, encompasses all of this: either through the general scope of its wording, or through its indication and a fortiori implication, which is stronger than its explicit meaning. At the very least, it encompasses this by analogy, as we have explained when discussing the prescribed punishment for a man who commits the act of the people of Lot and similar matters. And Allah knows best.
As for the words of the Most High:
“Wicked women are for wicked men, and wicked men are for wicked women; good women are for good men, and good men are for good women.”
The Most High states that wicked women are for wicked men. Thus, a wicked woman cannot be for a good man, since that would contradict the exclusivity expressed here. Thus, no