(*) Shaykh Nāsir ibn Hamad al-Fahd said (pp. 247–249): Several points should be noted here: First: Ibn al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy on him, included this fatwa in his book al-Turuq al-Hukmiyya, pp. 93–108. Second: These remarks by Shaykh al-Islām, may Allah have mercy on him, answered a question omitted from al-Fatāwā but included in al-Turuq al-Hukmiyya, p. 93, where Ibn al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy on him, said: “I have seen a question and answer on this matter by Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyya, may Allah have mercy on him and be pleased with him: ‘Do measures of governance involving the beating and imprisonment of accused persons in lawsuits and other matters form part of revealed law? If so, who deserves such treatment, and who does not? What should be the extent of the beating and the duration of imprisonment?’ He answered: ‘The cases adjudicated by those in authority, whether they are called judges or governors…’” Third: Comparison reveals some omissions and textual corruptions. Among the most important are: 1 – 35/391: “Ibn ‘Abbās [is the one who narrated from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, that ‘he assigned the oath to the defendant’; he is also] the one who narrates from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, that he adjudicated on the basis of an oath together with a witness.” The words in square brackets are missing from al-Fatāwā but appear in al-Turuq, p. 95. 2 – 35/395: “And sometimes a man and two women.” This is an error; the correct reading is: “And sometimes it is a man and two women,” as in al-Turuq, p. 96. 3 – 35/400: “They supposed that revealed law alone could not [sustain] the governance of the world.” The word in square brackets is missing from al-Fatāwā but appears in al-Turuq, p. 104. 4 – 35/405: The Shaykh, may Allah have mercy on him, mentioned three opinions concerning the extent of ta‘zīr (discretionary punishment), beginning with: “The first, and best, is the view of a group of the followers of al-Shāfi‘ī, Ahmad, and others: for each offense, discretionary punishment must fall short of the prescribed punishment for that offense, even if it exceeds a punishment prescribed for another offense…” In al-Turuq, p. 107, Ibn al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy on him, mentioned four opinions. The first—the fourth view, which is absent from al-Fatāwā—is: “It is determined by the public interest and is proportionate to the offense; the ruler exercises his judgment in determining it.” The point is that, after mentioning these opinions, he said in both al-Fatāwā and al-Turuq: “According to the first opinion, may such punishment extend to execution, as in the execution of a Muslim spy…?” In al-Fatāwā, this refers to the position that “for each offense, discretionary punishment must fall short of the prescribed punishment for that offense.” In al-Turuq, it refers to the position that “it is determined by the public interest.” The more likely conclusion is that the text in al-Turuq al-Hukmiyya is correct and that an omission has occurred in al-Fatāwā—and Allah knows best. His words, “According to the first opinion, may such punishment extend to execution?” indicate that the discretionary punishment in question is not subject to a specified limit. By contrast, the first opinion mentioned in al-Fatāwā stipulates that, for each offense, discretionary punishment must fall short of its prescribed punishment. This question therefore does not arise under that position; it arises only under the position that makes the punishment dependent on the public interest. Allah Most High knows best.