then he will fulfil his duty. Therefore, I believe that this approach, besides contradicting the Sacred Law and the wisdom of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, is undoubtedly ineffective.

His statement, “When a man disciplines his child”: its apparent meaning is general—so long as the child remains under his care, he is responsible for him, as the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “Each of you is a shepherd, and each of you is responsible for his flock. A man is a shepherd over the members of his household and is responsible for his flock.” (1) As long as the child is in his home, then, he is responsible for him. But once he becomes independent, he is no longer responsible for him—unless he possesses general authority, such as if he holds authority in his locality, in which case he may discipline him.

As for a teacher disciplining his pupil, it appears to me that a teacher may discipline anyone who studies under him, even if that student is older than he is.

His statement, “and does not exceed the proper bounds”: this is the fifth condition. Exceeding the proper bounds means going beyond the limit, whether in quantity or manner. Thus, if it is assumed that he will be corrected by two strikes, then a third is excessive; and if he will be corrected by ten, then an eleventh is excessive. The same applies to manner: if it is assumed that a light strike will correct him, then he should not be struck severely. Nor should he be struck in places that would harm him, such as the face, vital areas, and the like, for this is excess. Thus, excess means going beyond the limit in quantity or manner. The manner also includes the location of the strike, and it further takes into account that people differ: an adult’s capacity to bear a strike is not like that of a child.