The same applies to punishments: some are not imposed (1), by consensus, such as execution for refusing to embrace Islam, for an insane person is not executed on that account; some are imposed, such as the force used to repel his assault; and some may be uncertain.

There is no disagreement among the scholars that a person who is not legally accountable—such as a discerning child—is severely disciplined for sexual immorality. Likewise, an insane person may be beaten for what he has done (2) as a deterrent. However, a punishment (3) involving death or amputation is waived for anyone who is not legally accountable. This is known only through the revealed law; it is not self-evident, such that someone to whom it was unclear should be censured before learning it.

Moreover, many insane people—or perhaps most of them—experience periods of lucidity and reason. Umar may therefore have thought that she had committed fornication while sane and lucid. The term “insane” (4) is applied (5) both to someone suffering continuous insanity (6) and to someone suffering intermittent insanity. The jurists therefore divide the insane into these two categories. Continuous insanity is rare, while the intermittent form is predominant.

In sum, the criticisms he has leveled against Umar and others come down to two things: either a deficiency in knowledge or a deficiency in religion. We are now discussing the latter. Thus, what he has alleged concerning the denial of Fāṭima’s claim, favoritism in apportionment, the waiving of the prescribed punishment (7), and similar matters comes down to the claim that he was not