one for which there is liability and one for which there is none; therefore, he is liable for half. The second is that the blood money is divided across the total number of lashes, so the portion of the blood money equivalent to the excess beyond forty lashes becomes mandatory. It has been narrated from Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said: 'I would not carry out a prescribed punishment (hadd) on anyone and have them die, without feeling regret in my soul, except for the drinker of wine; and if he were to die, I would pay his blood money, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did not establish it for us.' Our position is that it is a prescribed punishment that became mandatory for the sake of Allah, so there is no liability for one who dies by it, like all other prescribed punishments. As for that which exceeds forty, we have already mentioned that it is part of the prescribed punishment, and even if it were considered a discretionary punishment (ta'zir), a discretionary punishment is obligatory, so it is in the same status as a prescribed punishment. As for the narration of Ali, it has been authentically established from him that he said: 'The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) flogged for forty, and Abu Bakr for forty.' The prescribed punishment has been confirmed by consensus (ijma'), so there remains no doubt regarding it.

Section: We do not know of any disagreement among the people of knowledge regarding the rest of the prescribed punishments that if one carries them out in the prescribed manner without any excess, there is no liability for one who dies by them; this is because he carried them out by the command of Allah and the command of His Messenger, so he is not to be held accountable for it. Furthermore, he is acting as a deputy for Allah the Almighty, so the death is attributed to Allah the Almighty. If he exceeds the prescribed punishment and the person dies, liability is mandatory without any disagreement that we know of, because the death occurred due to his transgression; thus, it is similar to if he had struck him outside of a prescribed punishment. Abu Bakr said: 'There are two opinions regarding the amount of liability; one of them is the full blood money, because it is a killing that occurred from the side of Allah and the transgression of the striker, so the liability lies upon the transgressor, just as if he had struck a sick person with a lash and he died as a result, and because he died due to both transgression and something else, so it is similar to if he...'