His statement, “and the like, and disciplinary punishment must not exceed ten lashes”: the one who administers disciplinary punishment is the ruler, his deputy, or anyone vested with authority to discipline in a general sense. This is broader in scope: a father may discipline his son, a teacher his pupils, and a ruler his subjects. Thus, everyone responsible for disciplining another has the right to do so.

His statement, “and disciplinary punishment must not exceed ten lashes,” means with a whip that is neither new nor worn out, and without stretching it out; nor should the offender be stripped, nor should the one administering the punishment raise his hand so high that his armpit becomes visible. Otherwise, the whip would strike the person with great force. The purpose is not to torture him; rather, it is to discipline him.

Thus, if we found a man with a woman, having spent an entire night with her and enjoyed every form of intimacy with her, yet without reaching the point of unlawful sexual intercourse, he would be given ten lashes and no more! In truth, their position that the punishment must not exceed ten lashes must have supporting evidence; otherwise, it would conflict with their earlier statement: “It is disciplinary punishment, and it is obligatory.” For ten lashes in the case of such a grave evil—which has not reached the level requiring the prescribed punishment—would not achieve discipline. Yet their evidence is that it is authentically reported from the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, that he said: “No one is to be lashed more than ten strokes except in one of Allah’s prescribed punishments.” (1)

They said: Here, the term hadd means punishment, because the hadith occurs in the context of punishments, as he said, “No one is to be lashed.” When it occurs in the context of punishments, hadd must be understood as punishment; that is, no one is to be punished by flogging