no prescribed punishment—for example, when a man kisses a woman who is unlawful for him, embraces her, touches her with desire, or the like. This is unlawful sexual enjoyment, but no prescribed punishment applies to it; therefore, disciplinary punishment is obligatory.

His statement, “theft for which there is no amputation,” means that one of the conditions making amputation obligatory—whose details will come, Allah willing—is absent. For example, if someone steals a dirham, this is a theft for which there is no amputation, so he is to be disciplined. Or if he steals from an unprotected place—for instance, he finds dirhams on a doorstep and steals them—then this too does not entail amputation, but it does entail disciplinary punishment.

Thus, the criterion for theft that does not entail amputation is that the conditions for amputation have not been fully met. Their explanation will come, Allah willing.

His statement, “an injury for which there is no retaliatory retribution,” conveys two points:

First, an injury for which retaliatory retribution is applicable does not entail disciplinary punishment, since retaliatory retribution suffices.

Second, an injury for which blood money is due entails disciplinary punishment, because he said, “for which there is no retaliatory retribution.” This is one of two views. According to the second view, it does not entail disciplinary punishment, blood money being sufficient.

If the injury entails neither retaliatory retribution, nor blood money, nor expiation—for example, if he wounds someone with a wound for which there is no retaliatory retribution, then it heals and leaves no effect—we have previously stated that financial assessment is due for it, and that if it causes no diminution, then nothing is due.

For example, a man wounds another person on his forehead with a wound that does not reach the bone; the wound then heals and closes, leaving no effect. Is anything due from him? There is no—