What is the meaning of there being no prescribed punishment (hadd) for one who has intercourse with a young girl who is not fit for intercourse, and what is the reason for that?

Scholars differed regarding the prescribed punishment (hadd) for a fornicator with a minor who is not amenable to intercourse (la yuwta' mithluha). Some jurists are of the opinion that this refers to a girl under nine years of age, and this was specified due to the impossibility of deriving enjoyment from her.

If the minor is amenable to intercourse, then the prescribed punishment applies to him by consensus. However, if she is not amenable to intercourse, then the apparent meaning of Ahmad's words is that he is subject to the prescribed punishment. There is also an opinion that he is not subject to the prescribed punishment, and this is the madhhab. However, the correct view is that whenever intercourse is possible, the prescribed punishment becomes obligatory upon the accountable individual.

The absence of the prescribed punishment does not mean the absence of penalty. Rather, the perpetrator is to be disciplined (ta'zeer) for committing what is unlawful for him religiously. And if, by his action, he causes the minor to suffer defloration (ifdaa'), then he owes one-third of the blood money (diyah) and the bridal gift (mahr), because the prescribed punishment is legislated for deterrence, and the nature of rational people does not incline them to have intercourse with a minor who is not desired.