As for the ruler’s prerogative, does it lapse when the person entitled to it pardons the offender, if the ruler believes that enforcing it serves the public interest? The apparent meaning of Aḥmad’s statement—may Allah Most High have mercy on him—is that it does lapse, since he made no distinction. It is also possible that it does not lapse, because taʿzīr serves the purposes of discipline and correction.

If, however, it concerns a right belonging to Allah Most High, may the ruler waive it? In the narration of Ibn Manṣūr, concerning a man who beats his slave, Aḥmad said: “Yes, by Allah. He disciplines him for neglecting the prayer and for disobedience, but he may pardon him for whatever lies between the two of them.” The apparent meaning of this is that pardon is not permissible in matters concerning Allah’s right—namely, neglecting the prayer. He likewise said, in the narration of Ḥanbal, concerning a false witness: “That is up to the ruler; if he wishes, he may punish him.” Thus, he gave the ruler the choice to refrain from imposing taʿzīr.

In his epistle to al-Iṣṭakhrī, he stated: “Whoever disparages any of the Companions, the ruler must discipline him, and he may not pardon him.” The apparent meaning of this is that pardoning him is not permissible.

If a father and his son exchange insults and assault one another, the father’s taʿzīr for an offense against his son is waived, whereas the son’s taʿzīr for an offense against his father is not waived, just as it is not waived in the fixed penalty for slander. His taʿzīr would then pertain exclusively to the ruler’s prerogative. May the person in authority pardon him? This is governed by the two transmitted positions. He may not pardon him if the father demands punishment, because it is the father’s right.

Taʿzīr does not entail liability for any damage resulting from it. The same applies to a teacher who strikes a child as a customary form of discipline, if this leads to the child’s death; he is not liable. Likewise, if a husband strikes his wife because of her marital disobedience and she dies as a result, he bears no liability. This was explicitly stated in the narration of Abū Ṭālib, who asked him: “Is retaliatory punishment applicable between a woman and her husband?” He replied: “No, not when he strikes her as discipline.” Bakr ibn Muḥammad likewise transmitted: “If a man strikes his wife as discipline, breaking her hand or leg or wounding her, no retaliation is due from him.”

Abū Bakr mentioned the differing opinions in Kitāb al-Adab, saying: “If a teacher strikes children without causing serious injury, and the beating consists of three strikes, he is not liable.” By analogy, the same applies to a father when disciplining his son.