And it is obligatory in every sin that has no fixed punishment and no expiation

The Shaykh :"And it is obligatory" This is the ruling on disciplinary action. Upon whom? Upon the one who has the right to administer discipline. It may be the Imam, his deputy, the judge, the father, the mother, or the like. Whoever has the right to administer discipline, it is obligatory upon him. And his statement that it is obligatory is what the author, may Allah have mercy on him, held, that it is obligatory. Some scholars said that it is not absolutely obligatory, nor is it absolutely to be left off, and that it returns to the judge's independent legal reasoning, on the condition that he is trustworthy. They cited many matters that occurred during the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) where disciplinary action was left off, and that the objective is discipline. Many people, if you show them leniency and release them, consider this release greater than the discipline. They see a place for this leniency and refrain from sin more strongly than if you were to beat them. If you beat them in front of people, they might become stubborn and return to the sin. But if you show them leniency, it becomes more upright for them. For this reason, regarding prisoners of war, it passed us in the discussion of jihad that it is permissible for the Imam to show them leniency according to what public benefit requires. So this man, perhaps if we bring him and say, "My brother, this is not befitting of you, and you are a man for whom it is difficult for us to discipline you in front of people or to display discipline against you, but considering your status and condition, we wish to pardon you and advise you to return from such things," this might be more beneficial for him than if we beat him with whips in the market. The correct view is that it is not absolutely obligatory, and that the Imam or the one with the right to discipline may drop it if he sees that something else is more beneficial and better.
He said: "In every sin that has no fixed punishment and no expiation" His statement "in every sin": if he means by sin what is the opposite of obedience, there is a consideration, because a person may be subjected to discretionary punishment for leaving off acts of obedience, not just for sins. If he means by sin disobedience in general, then this is correct. Pay attention, my brother: if he means by sin the opposite of obedience, it is not correct. If he means by sin disobedience to what? The command. This includes committing the sin and leaving off obedience. So his statement is correct, because it is established that disciplinary action is for leaving off the obligatory. It is established that disciplinary action is upon him. This includes that he must do it, and he must. This is discretionary punishment for what? For leaving off an obligatory duty. And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: And this is for leaving off an obligatory duty. So the correct view is that disciplinary action, and it is likely the author's intention, is that disciplinary action is obligatory in every sin, whether that sin is by leaving off the obligatory or by committing the forbidden. But note that disciplinary action for committing the forbidden is not repeated, whereas disciplinary action for leaving off the obligatory is repeated until he performs the obligatory. For example, if we tell a man, "Pray now, the time is about to end," and he is negligent, we beat him. If he is negligent again, we beat him until he prays, even if it is repeated, because the objective is to correct him, so we do not stop beating him until he is corrected. As for a sin that is committed and then passes, he is punished for it once. If he returns to it, we punish him with a new punishment for a new sin.
He says: "In every sin that has no fixed punishment and no expiation" If it has a fixed punishment, the fixed punishment is sufficient in place of discretionary punishment. If it has an expiation, the expiation is sufficient in place of discretionary punishment. An example of one that has a fixed punishment: if a man commits unlawful sexual intercourse, if a man commits unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman and he is not a married man, meaning he has not married yet, we flog him one hundred lashes. Do we also subject him to discretionary punishment? No, we are content with the fixed punishment. And there is no expiation; the expiation also does not involve discretionary punishment. So the sin that has an expiation does not have discretionary punishment, because the expiation is a type of discretionary punishment. It is compelling him either to a difficult act or to money by which he ransoms himself. An example is a man who has intercourse with his wife during the day of Ramadan while fasting is obligatory upon him. What is his expiation? Freeing a slave. If he does not find one, then fasting two consecutive months. If he cannot do that, then feeding sixty poor people. This is a type of discretionary punishment, is it not a type of discretionary punishment?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Yes, or is it no?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Yes. How is it discretionary punishment? Freeing a slave means that he will spend a lot of his money. Fasting two consecutive months means he will perform a difficult act. Feeding sixty poor people is likewise, because if he does not find a slave and cannot fast, he feeds sixty poor people. So we are content with the expiation in place of discretionary punishment. Is that clear? Also, if the author had said "and no retaliation" or "and no blood money," it would have been better, because the sin that has retaliation is content with retaliation in place of discretionary punishment. So if a man kills a man or cuts off a limb in a way that establishes retaliation, what happens? Retaliation is taken from him, and we are content with that, because Allah the Exalted did not mention anything besides retaliation. Okay, and we say "and no blood money," and we are content with the blood money in place of discretionary punishment? Meaning, for example, if a man commits a crime that has no expiation, no retaliation, and no fixed punishment, but has blood money, do we say his blood money is his expiation or not? The apparent meaning of the author's words is no, because the blood money is a right for the human being, and discretionary punishment is a right for Allah. The evidence is that the one who commits a crime against a person that does not involve retaliation has done two things: he encroached upon the right of Allah, because Allah the Exalted forbade us to encroach upon those who have sanctity, and the second is the right of the human being. If that is the case, we say the right of the human being is for him, and the right of Allah is for Allah. For this reason, Allah made obligatory in accidental killing an expiation and blood money. The expiation is for Allah, and the blood money is for the human being. This is a point of consideration. It could be said that we discipline him considering the public right, so that chaos does not spread and people do not kill one another. And it could be said that we are content with the blood money in place of discipline, because it is a type of discretionary punishment. So is discretionary punishment obligatory or recommended? It is obligatory according to the author's opinion. And where is its place? In every sin that has no fixed punishment and no expiation. Okay, if someone asks, "What is the evidence for the obligation of discretionary punishment?" We say we have general evidences and specific evidences. As for the general evidences, the Shari'ah came built upon obtaining benefits and reducing harms. This principle is agreed upon, is it not? It is agreed upon. And it is known that in discretionary punishment there is obtaining of benefits and reduction of evil. Allah the Mighty and Majestic, affirming this principle, said: And He the Glorious and Exalted said: As for the specific evidences, they are scattered, like what we referred to a moment ago from the saying of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him): And like burning the tent of the one who concealed from the war spoils, because this is discretionary punishment, is it not? Who is the one who conceals from the war spoils? The one who hides something of what he gained. His tent is burned because he concealed. And like the one who conceals lost property. Lost property means the lost camel. If it is lost and he conceals it, he is liable for its value twice. And like the one who sneezes and does not praise Allah. How do we subject him to discretionary punishment? We do not say "May Allah have mercy on you"; we deprive him of something he loves. For this reason, the Jews in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) would sneeze and praise Allah in order for the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) to say to them, "May Allah have mercy on you." But he did not say to them "May Allah have mercy on you"; he said, "May Allah guide you." And this disbeliever, if he sneezes and praises Allah, you do not say "May Allah have mercy on you"; you say to him, "May Allah guide you." And if Allah guides him, He will have mercy on him. Okay, so discretionary punishment has general evidence and specific evidences. The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not say, "Every sin that has no fixed punishment and no expiation, discipline them for it." He did not say it this way, but we see multiple cases involving discretionary punishment, and we can take from these individual cases the principle mentioned by the author. Yes.