and retaliation for homicide and for injuries to limbs or lesser wounds.

Accordingly, every other act of disobedience is subject to a discretionary punishment (taʿzīr), which, in Imam Aḥmad’s well-known position, ranges from ten lashes downwards.

When the Ḥanbalī jurists speak of a “fixed taʿzīr,” they mean a penalty for someone who has already completed the sin. As for the person who persists in it, he is to be disciplined until he desists. For that reason Shaykh al-Islām said: “Our scholars who set a numerical limit for taʿzīr did so only when the punishment addresses an act or omission that has already occurred. If the taʿzīr is imposed because he refuses to abandon what he is doing, it is akin to executing an apostate or an enemy combatant, or to fighting rebels. Such a taʿzīr is not capped; it may reach killing, just as an assailant who attacks to seize wealth may be repelled even by killing him.” (He continued at length.)

Another report from Imam Aḥmad states that every sin has a corresponding set punishment that stops short of the full ḥadd; for instance, if a man fornicates with a slave-girl in whom he owns a share, he is flogged one hundred lashes minus one.

Abū Ḥanīfah and al-Shāfiʿī maintain that a discretionary punishment must never equal any of the prescribed ḥudūd.

Some scholars interpret the Prophet’s words “except in a ḥadd from the ḥudūd of Allah” to mean that the ḥudūd are Allah’s commands and prohibitions. Therefore, so long as the taʿzīr responds to a sin—whether through neglecting an obligation or committing a forbidden act—the ruler may inflict whatever measure he deems sufficient to deter the offender from repeating it. That differs with place and time, with persons, and with the nature of the offense.

Times and locales may call for lenience or severity in punishing sinners, and individuals likewise vary: each deserves the discipline that will effectively deter him. For some, a stern rebuke suffices; others need beating and flogging; others, imprisonment; and still others, the confiscation of property. People of dignity who seldom err—those of social standing—should be pardoned, whereas those who are openly defiant ought to be dealt with harshly. Sins themselves differ in gravity and lightness.

The ruler must therefore consider the circumstances, conditions, and surrounding factors so that he proceeds with insight and his disciplinary measures strike their proper target and achieve their purpose. The decision rests with him: it may be a rebuke, social boycott, flogging, imprisonment, confiscation of wealth, or even execution.

All these punishments have foundations in the Sacred Law. Below are statements from the scholars on this topic.

Imam Aḥmad—may Allah have mercy on him—said regarding someone who drinks wine during the daytime in Ramadan or commits a similar act: “The ḥadd is to be enforced against him and the penalty intensified, like the one who kills in the Sacred Precinct: he must pay the blood-money and an additional one-third.” He also said: “If a woman engages in sexual activity with another woman, the two of them are to be punished and disciplined.”