al-Hasan. Abu Bakr said: I hold this view, because intercourse with a corpse is not [like intercourse], as it is a consumed organ, and because one like her is not desired, and the soul finds it repulsive, so there is no need for the law to impose a deterrent against it, and the punishment was only imposed as a deterrent. As for a young girl, if she is of an age where she can be had for intercourse, then intercourse with her is adultery that warrants the punishment, for she is like an adult woman in that regard. If she is of an age that is not fit (6) for intercourse, there are two views regarding her, like the corpse. The Qadi said: There is no punishment for one who has intercourse with a young girl who has not reached nine, because one like her is not desired, so it resembles the case where one inserts his finger into her vagina. Similarly, if a woman admits the penis of a boy who has not reached ten, there is no punishment upon her. The correct view is that whenever one [has intercourse with one] (7) whom it is possible to have intercourse with, or the woman makes it possible for one whom intercourse is possible, then the punishment is incumbent upon the accountable one among them, and it is not permissible to limit this to nine or ten; because limitation only occurs through textual evidence (tawqif), [and there is no textual evidence] (10) for this. The fact that nine is the age when enjoyment is generally possible does not preclude it from existing before it, just as puberty generally occurs at fifteen years, yet that does not preclude it from occurring before it.

Section: If one marries a mahram (a woman whom he is forbidden to marry due to kinship), the marriage is void by consensus. If he has intercourse with her, the punishment is incumbent upon him, according to the opinion of the majority of scholars, including al-Hasan, Jabir ibn Zayd, Malik, al-Shafi'i, Abu Yusuf, Muhammad, Ishaq, Abu Ayyub, and Ibn Abi Khaythama. Abu Hanifa and al-Thawri said: There is no punishment for him; because it is intercourse where an ambiguity (shubha) was present, so it does not necessitate the punishment, just as if he had bought his sister through fosterage and then had intercourse with her. The explanation of the ambiguity is that the form of a permissible act was found, which is the marriage contract that is a cause for permissibility. Thus, when its ruling—which is permissibility—is not established, its form remains as an ambiguity