one should deal justly between the two wrongdoers in this matter, for justice is commanded in all matters as far as possible. Justice here includes not enabling either of them to commit aggression against the other; rather, one should do whatever comes closest to justice.

The scholars differed over whether a confession made under interrogation by imprisonment or beating may be acted upon. Some held that it should be accepted if its truth becomes apparent—for example, if the person produces the very property that was stolen. Even if he retracts his confession after the beating, his retraction is not accepted; rather, he is held to his confession. This is Ashhab’s position concerning both the judge and the governor, and it is the position mentioned by the two judges, al-Māwardī and Abū Ya‘lā, concerning the governor.

Others held that a further confession corresponding to the number of blows is required, and that if he retracts his confession, he is not held to it. This is the position of Ibn al-Qāsim and many Shāfi‘ī and Hanbalī scholars, as well as others.

As for “the extent of beating,” if someone is beaten for failing to fulfil an obligation—for example, being beaten until he fulfils it—then no fixed overall limit applies. Rather, he is beaten on one day; if he fulfils the obligation, that ends the matter, otherwise he is beaten on another day. However, on each occasion the beating must not exceed the maximum discretionary punishment, according to those who prescribe an upper limit for it. The scholars have expressed several views concerning “the maximum discretionary punishment” imposed for committing prohibited acts: