his imprisonment, “Do not imprison him. If it comes to imprisoning him, I am willing to wait,” then he is not imprisoned, because the right belongs to the creditor; were he to forgive him, he could do so. Since the right is his, and he could forgive him if he wished, then in this case he waives imprisonment for him. He says, “Do not imprison him; leave him, and whenever he wishes, he will pay.” If he persists, he is imprisoned. This case may be rare, but it may occur with some foolish people or with someone who seeks to harm the creditor. In any event, he is imprisoned for two days, three days, or more.

His statement: “If he persists and does not sell his property, the governing authority sells it and settles his debt.” The author did not mention beating; that is, he is imprisoned but not beaten. The apparent meaning of his words is that he is not to be beaten.

Some scholars said instead that he should be beaten, being given a discretionary punishment each day, but without exceeding the prescribed maximum for discretionary lashes, which according to the well-known view is ten lashes. Thus, each day he is given ten lashes: he is imprisoned night and day and lashed in the morning, and he is told, “Pay what you owe.” If neither imprisonment nor beating is effective, then the governing authority sells his property and settles his debt. However, the author—may Allah have mercy on him—held that there should be no beating, because it serves no purpose. If a man has endured imprisonment and still does not pay, what benefit is there in beating him? But if the ruler, whether a judge or an amir, considers that beating him may be beneficial, then he may beat him in a manner that is not severe. Accordingly, beating is not obligatory; rather, it is left to what serves the public interest.

The apparent meaning of the author’s words is that the governing authority does not sell his property immediately. That is, if he is told, “Pay the debt,” and he replies, “No,” we say, “We will imprison you,” and he says: