—does this result in liability? The scholars agreed that, for a fixed obligation [such as a prescribed punishment, no liability is incurred if it leads to death, because it is obligatory upon the offender. They differed regarding what is permissible, such as retaliation, and what is not fixed] (1), such as discretionary punishment, a man’s striking his wife, an animal trainer’s striking an animal, and a disciplinarian’s striking a child. They held three views.

One view is that no liability is incurred in any of these cases, because the act is permissible. This is the view of Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Mālik, as I believe (2).

Another view is that liability is incurred for a permissible act, but not for an obligatory act [that is not fixed] (3), because the former could have been left undone. This is the view of Abū Hanīfa.

A third view is that liability is incurred for anything not fixed. This is the view of al-Shāfiī, because if an unfixed punishment causes death, this shows that the person who administered it erred.

[Section: The Rāfidī’s claim that Umar—may Allah be pleased with him—ordered a pregnant woman to be stoned]

Section (4)

The Rāfidī (5) said:

“He had little knowledge of legal rulings: he ordered (6) that a pregnant woman be stoned. Ali (7) said to him, ‘If you have authority over her, you have none over what is in her womb.’ He therefore refrained and said, ‘Were it not for Ali, Umar would have perished.’”

The response is that, if this account is authentic, then it can only be that