As for the prohibited acts relating to the rights of Allah Most High, they fall into three categories: the first concerns acts of worship; the second concerns prohibited matters; and the third concerns transactions.
Acts relating to worship include deliberately violating their prescribed forms—for example, reciting aloud in a prayer in which recitation should be silent, reciting silently in a prayer in which it should be audible, adding something to the prayer, or adding unsanctioned invocations to the adhān. The muḥtasib may denounce such conduct and discipline anyone who obstinately persists in it. Likewise, if someone neglects the purification of his body, clothing, or place of prayer, the muḥtasib should denounce him once this has been established. He must not hold him accountable on the basis of accusations and conjecture.
Similarly, if he merely suspects that a man is neglecting the ritual bath required after major ritual impurity, or is abandoning prayer or fasting, he must not hold him accountable on the basis of suspicion. However, he may, on that basis, admonish him and warn him of the punishment of Allah Most High for abandoning His rights and failing to fulfill his obligations.
If he sees him eating during Ramadan, he must not proceed to discipline him until he has asked why he is eating, since he may be ill or traveling. He is required to question him when signs of suspicion appear. If the man gives an excuse compatible with his circumstances, the muḥtasib must cease rebuking him, but order him to conceal his eating so that he does not expose himself to suspicion. He need not make him swear an oath when there is reason to suspect him, since the matter is left to his honesty. If he gives no excuse, the muḥtasib should denounce him and discipline him with a deterrent punishment. Likewise, even if he knows that the man has a valid excuse for eating, he should denounce his openly doing so, since he is exposing himself to suspicion and because ignorant people who cannot distinguish between one who has an excuse and one who does not might imitate him.
As for one who refuses to pay his zakat, if it concerns apparent wealth, the zakat collector should take it from him by force and impose a discretionary punishment on him for unlawfully withholding it, provided he has no excuse. If it concerns non-apparent wealth, it is possible that the muḥtasib has a stronger claim to denounce him than the zakat collector, since the collector has no jurisdiction over non-apparent wealth. It is also possible that the collector has a stronger claim to denounce him, since paying it to the collector would discharge his obligation. The disciplinary action taken against him should be determined in light of the circumstantial indications surrounding his refusal to pay his zakat. If he says that he pays it privately, he is to be left to his own honesty.
If he sees a man soliciting people and asking for charity, and knows that he has no need for it, either because he possesses wealth or because he is able to earn a living, he should denounce him and discipline him. In this matter, the muḥtasib has a stronger claim to intervene than the zakat collector. If he merely sees signs of affluence while the man is asking people for charity, he should inform him that it is forbidden for one who is self-sufficient to accept it, but should not denounce him, since he may in fact be poor. If someone capable and strong enough to work resorts to begging, he should rebuke him and order him to seek gainful employment. If he persists in begging, he should be given a discretionary punishment until he abandons it.