the camel of Jabir, and struck it (10). Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him, would scratch his camel with his camel-stick (mihjan). A horse trainer is permitted to strike the animal for discipline, to regulate its gait, its trot, and its movement. A teacher is permitted to strike boys for discipline. Al-Athram said: Ahmad was asked about a teacher striking boys, and he said: "According to the extent of their faults, and he should endeavor to avoid striking as much as he can; and if the child is small and does not have understanding, he should not strike him." Whoever among all these (11) (12) people strikes with the permitted degree of striking is not liable for what is destroyed. Regarding the animal, this is the position of Malik, al-Shafi'i, Ishaq, Abu Thawr, Abu Yusuf, and Muhammad. Al-Thawri and Abu Hanifa said: He is liable, because it was destroyed by his injurious act, so he is liable, like one who is not a lessee. Similarly, al-Shafi'i said regarding a teacher striking a boy, because it is possible for him to discipline him without striking. Our evidence is that it was destroyed through a permissible action, so he is not liable, just as if it were destroyed under a load. Furthermore, striking is a matter encompassed by the lease contract, so if it is destroyed by it, he is not liable, just as in the case of riding. It differs from one who is not a lessee, because that person is a transgressor. The saying of al-Shafi'i that "it is possible to discipline without striking" is not correct, for custom is contrary to it. If it were possible to discipline without striking, striking would not be permissible, as it involves harm and pain that is unnecessary. If he exceeds the limits in all of this, or increases beyond what is sufficient (13) for the purpose, or strikes a boy who has no understanding, then he is liable, because he is a transgressor whose act of aggression caused the destruction.