Khadījah, as the Judge mentioned in al-Muʿtamad. This is a mistaken attribution to Ahmad, for this hadith is weak—indeed, fabricated. Ahmad was far too eminent to rely on such a hadith. Moreover, the report is internally contradictory: its ending refutes its beginning.

Another group, including Abū al-Faraj Ibn al-Jawzī and others, held that they are in Paradise. Some who advocated withholding judgment explained this as meaning that some of them will enter Paradise and others the Fire, according to their response to the duties imposed upon them on the Day of Resurrection, as related in several reports. This is the position al-Ashʿarī attributed to the people of the Sunnah and hadith. We have discussed this at length earlier.

Our point here is that we know of no one among the early generations who held that a distinction should be made between different categories of those who have not reached puberty regarding killing them or punishment in the Hereafter. Rather, the jurists agree that punishments involving loss of life or limb, such as execution and amputation, apply only to those who have reached puberty.

These two positions may, however, be reconciled by saying that those who have not reached puberty bear no guilt entailing punishment in the Hereafter, nor are they subject to worldly punishments involving loss of life or limb. Children who have attained discernment are not, however, exempt from disciplinary punishment by striking and the like. Indeed, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

“Instruct them to pray at seven, strike them for neglecting it at ten, and separate them in their beds.”

Thus, he commanded that they be struck for neglecting prayer, a religious obligation. Striking them for lying and injustice is therefore all the more warranted. There is no known disagreement among scholars on this point: a child may be subjected to painful discipline for reprehensible acts he commits and for neglecting matters necessary for his welfare.