my soul anything [to suggest] that the Truth killed him, except for the hadd of drinking wine, for the Messenger of Allah (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did not establish it for us (24). And he advised Umar regarding liability for the woman who aborted her fetus when he sent for her (25). As for us, it is a punishment legislated for deterrence and admonition, so one who perishes by it is not subject to liability, just like the hadd. As for the statement of Ali regarding the blood money for one killed by the hadd for drinking wine, he was contradicted by others among the Companions, as they did not make anything obligatory because of it, and neither al-Shafi'i nor other jurists acted upon it. How then could it be used as a proof while everyone has abandoned it? Regarding his statement concerning the fetus, they have no proof in it, for the fetus that perished committed no crime and was subject to no tazir, so how could its liability be waived? If the Imam were to carry out a hadd upon a pregnant woman and it destroyed her fetus, he would be liable for it, even though the hadd is something we all agree upon (26) that there is no liability for the one upon whom the hadd is carried out if he perishes by it.

Section: There is no liability for a husband if his wife perishes due to the legitimate disciplinary action for defiance (nushuz), nor for a teacher if he disciplines his student in a legitimate manner. Malik held this view. Al-Shafi'i and Abu Hanifa said: 'He is liable.' The basis for both schools of thought is what was previously mentioned in the section before it. Al-Khallal said: 'If the teacher strikes three times, as stated by the Successors (tabi'un) and the jurists of the major cities, and it was three times, he is not liable. But if he strikes him severely in a manner that does not constitute discipline for a boy, he is liable, because he has transgressed in the striking.' Al-Qadi said: 'The same applies, by analogy to the view of our companions, if a father or grandfather strikes a boy as a form of discipline and he dies, or if the ruler, his deputy, or the guardian (wasi) strikes him for discipline, they are not liable, just like the teacher.'

Section: If one amputates a limb of a person that has gangrene or a growth (sil'a) with his permission, and he is an adult of sound mind, there is no liability upon him. If he amputates it under compulsion, then the amputation and its subsequent spread are liable for retribution (qisas), whether the amputator is an imam or someone else; because this is an injury that leads to death, and if the gangrene's remaining