and likewise, if he exceeds the proper severity of the flogging and the person dies, he is liable, because he has gone beyond what is permitted; and whatever results from an unauthorized act entails liability.

If someone were to ask: if he gives him one hundred and one lashes, and he did not die from the extra lash itself but undoubtedly died from the total number, should the blood money be apportioned according to the number of lashes, or is he liable in full?

We say: rather, he is liable in full, because he transgressed; and it is possible that, had it not been for that one extra lash, he would not have died. Accordingly, we say that he is liable if he exceeds the prescribed number. The same applies if he strikes him on the face, the head, the private parts, or similar places where flogging is not permitted.

What is the limit of the force of the blow?

The answer is that, in practice, it cannot be precisely defined. Rather, it is determined by what the person being flogged can bear. Thus, if it is assumed that he cannot endure it because of physical weakness or an illness from which recovery is not expected, he is struck with an appropriate whip. Indeed, we may at times say: strike him with a palm-frond cluster—that is, gather frond stalks equal in number to the prescribed lashes and strike him with them. Thus, flogging is according to the endurance of the person flogged, and it cannot be precisely defined, because this is a matter of quality, and qualities are difficult to define since they cannot be seen.

His statement, “No pit is dug for the person stoned for fornication,” means that no pit is dug for one who is stoned for fornication. The passive-subject substitute is the prepositional phrase, since there is no direct object here to stand in place of the subject. Hence Ibn Malik said:

“A qualifying adverbial, verbal noun, or prepositional phrase
may serve as a substitute;
but none of these substitutes when a direct object
is present in the wording—though this may sometimes occur.”