The third category is where the accused is known for wrongdoing: for example, someone accused of theft who was previously known for it, someone accused of highway robbery who was known for it, or someone accused of murder; or where any of these persons is known for conduct that gives grounds for such an accusation. If detaining someone whose character is unknown is permissible, then detaining someone known for wrongdoing is all the more justified.

I know of none of the authoritative imams of the Muslims who held that, in all such cases, the defendant should swear an oath and then be released by any of the authorities, without detention or any other measure. No imam holds this position without qualification. Whoever claims that this, in its unrestricted and universal application, is the religious law has committed a gross error, contrary to the explicit teachings of Allah’s Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and the consensus of the Muslim community.

Such gross errors have emboldened rulers to contravene the religious law. They imagined that the religious law alone could not provide for the governance of society and the interests of the Muslim community, and consequently transgressed Allah’s limits in these matters. Both groups’ ignorance of the true nature of the religious law has led people to abandon it in favour of various innovations in governance.

This category includes cases involving qasāmah—the procedure of fifty oaths in homicide cases. Its rulings are well known and need not be mentioned here. As for accusations of theft, highway robbery and similar offences, detention in such cases has already been discussed.

As for questioning through beating and similar means, scholars differed: is it authorized for both the judge and the governor? Or for the governor but not the judge? Or is beating authorized for either of them? There are three views.