then retaliation is exacted from him, and that suffices, because Allah, Exalted is He, has mentioned nothing beyond equal retribution.
Likewise, we might say: nor blood money, and regard blood money as sufficient in place of disciplinary punishment. Thus, if someone commits an offence for which there is no expiation, retaliation, or prescribed punishment, but for which blood money is due, should we say that its blood money serves as its expiation, or not?
The answer is that the apparent meaning of the author’s words is: no, because blood money is a right owed to a human being, whereas disciplinary punishment is a right owed to Allah. The proof is that one who injures another in a manner for which no retaliation is due has committed two offences. First, he has violated Allah’s right, because Allah has forbidden us to transgress against anyone whose person is inviolable. Second, he has violated the right of the individual.
Since this is so, we say: the individual’s right belongs to him, and Allah’s right belongs to Allah. This is why Allah has made both expiation and blood money obligatory in cases of accidental killing: the expiation is for Allah, and the blood money is for the individual.
This matter requires further consideration. It may be said that we discipline him in consideration of the public right, so that disorder does not spread and people do not kill one another. Or it may be said that blood money suffices in place of disciplining him, since it is a form of disciplinary punishment.
The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, did not say, “For every sin for which there is no prescribed punishment or expiation, impose disciplinary punishment.” Rather, we find a number of individual cases in which disciplinary punishment was imposed, and from these cases we may derive the principle mentioned by the author in his statement: “It is obligatory for every sin for which there is no prescribed punishment or expiation.”
However, where disciplinary punishment has been explicitly prescribed in the texts, the Imam has no choice in the matter. This includes drinking wine, concealing lost property, and burning the belongings of one who misappropriates war booty. It cannot be said that this is left to the Imam’s discretion; rather, it must be carried out.
“Such as unlawful sexual enjoyment for which there is no prescribed punishment, theft for which there is no amputation, an injury for which there is no retaliatory retribution, a woman having sexual relations with another woman, making a defamatory accusation other than an accusation of unlawful sexual intercourse, and similar matters. No more than ten lashes may be given as disciplinary punishment, ...”
His statement, “Such as unlawful sexual enjoyment for which there is no prescribed punishment,” means: such as unlawful sexual enjoyment for which there is no prescribed punishment—