Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (14/311)

he remains negligent, we continue to beat him until he prays, even if this must be repeated, because the aim is to set him right. Thus, we do not stop beating him until he reforms. As for a sin that has been committed and is over, he is punished for it only once. If he repeats it, we punish him with a new punishment for a new sin.

His statement, “for which there is neither a prescribed punishment nor an expiation”: if there is a prescribed punishment for it, then the prescribed punishment suffices in place of disciplinary punishment; and if there is an expiation for it, then the expiation suffices in place of disciplinary punishment.

An example of an offence carrying a prescribed punishment is when a man commits fornication with a woman while he is not muhsan [previously married]. He is flogged one hundred lashes. But is he also given a disciplinary punishment? No; the prescribed punishment is sufficient.

Likewise, an offence for which there is an expiation does not entail disciplinary punishment, because expiation is itself a form of disciplinary punishment: it obliges him either to undertake a burdensome act or to pay wealth by which he redeems himself.

For example, a man has intercourse with his wife during the daytime in Ramadan when fasting is obligatory upon him. Must he offer an expiation?

The answer is yes: freeing a slave; if he cannot find one, then fasting for two consecutive months; and if he is unable, then feeding sixty needy people. This is a form of disciplinary punishment, because freeing a slave means that he must spend a considerable amount of his wealth. Likewise, fasting for two consecutive months is burdensome, and so too is feeding sixty needy people. For if he cannot find a slave to free and is unable to fast, he must feed sixty needy people. Thus, the expiation suffices in place of disciplinary punishment.

Had the author said, “nor retaliation,” or “nor qawad [retaliatory execution or bodily retribution],” it would have been better, because for an offence entailing retaliation, retaliation suffices in place of disciplinary punishment. Thus, if a man kills another man, or amputates one of his limbs in a manner that establishes the right of retaliation

تهاون، فنضربه حتى يصلي، ولو تكرر؛ لأن المراد تقويمه، فلا نوقف ضربه حتى يتقوم، أما معصية فعلت وذهبت، فهذه يعاقب عليها مرة واحدة، فإن عاد عاقبناه بعقوبة جديدة لمعصية جديدة. قوله: «لا حد فيها ولا كفارة» فإن كان فيها حدٌّ فالحد كافٍ عن التعزير، وإن كان فيها كفارة فالكفارة كافية عن التعزير. مثال الذي فيها الحد: لو أن رجلاً زنا بامرأة وهو غير محصن نجلده مائة جلدة، ولكن هل نعزره مع ذلك؟ لا، اكتفاء بالحد. وكذلك المعصية التي فيها كفارة ليس فيها تعزير؛ لأن الكفارة نوع تعزير، فهي إلزام له، إما بعمل شاق، وإما بمال يفدي به نفسه. مثاله: رجل جامع امرأته في نهار رمضان مع وجوب الصوم عليه، فهل عليه كفارة؟ الجواب: نعم؛ عتق رقبة، فإن لم يجد فصيام شهرين متتابعين، فإن لم يستطع فإطعام ستين مسكيناً، هذا نوع تعزير؛ لأن عتق الرقبة معناه أنه سيبذل شيئاً كثيراً من ماله، وكذلك صيام شهرين متتابعين عمل شاق، وإطعام ستين مسكيناً كذلك؛ لأنه إذا لم يجد عتق رقبة، ولم يستطع الصيام فسيطعم ستين مسكيناً، فيكتفى بالكفارة عن التعزير. ولو قال المؤلف: ولا قصاص، أو: ولا قود، لكان أجود؛ لأن المعصية التي فيها قود يكتفى بالقود عن التعزير، فلو أن رجلاً قتل رجلاً، أو قطع طرفه على وجه يثبت به القصاص