Ilyas Ghumman Sahib says that a man who commits zina with a woman after giving her money is not subject to the hadd, and one who does it with animals is not subject to the hadd — what do the Qur'an and Hadith say about this? He says it is a sin but there is no hadd.

Preliminary principle: Not every haram act carries a "hadd" (a fixed punishment); some carry a hadd, some carry "ta'zir" (a discretionary punishment of the judge). The non-application of a hadd is not proof that the act is permissible — it remains haram and a sin.

1. Zina for payment (istijar al-mar'ah li'l-zina): It is outright zina; according to the majority (Malik, al-Shafi'i, Ahmad) and in the light of the hadith, the hadd of zina will be applied (unmarried: 100 lashes; married: stoning). Evidences: «لَا يَزْنِي الزَّانِي حِينَ يَزْنِي وَهُوَ مُؤْمِنٌ» (Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim); ﴿وَلَا تَقْرَبُوا الزِّنَا إِنَّهُ كَانَ فَاحِشَةً وَسَاءَ سَبِيلًا﴾ (al-Isra: 32); «مَهْرُ الْبَغِيِّ خَبِيثٌ» (Sahih Muslim: 1568) — giving money does not change the reality of zina; rather, it makes the sin more severe. A fiqh distinction: In one saying of Abu Hanifah, may Allah have mercy on him, on the basis of a doubt (shubhah), in some circumstances the hadd may fall away and ta'zir may take its place; the position of the majority alone is the strong one and based on caution. Saying "there is no hadd" is only a pointer to a fiqh difference — the act is in any case haram and a major sin.

2. Bestiality (wat' al-bahimah): According to all the imams it is haram, a major sin, and contrary to nature (fitrah). There are two positions on the punishment: (a) Ta'zir and a severe punishment (Imam Ahmad and others); (b) Ta'zir instead of the hadd of zina/killing (Abu Hanifah etc.). In some narrations "killing" is mentioned, but its chain and ruling are a matter of dispute.

Summary: Zina for money = outright zina, hadd applies, a major sin. Bestiality = haram and a major sin, but not the hadd of zina — ta'zir.

Translated from the original Urdu fatwa.