What is the ruling concerning a state whose constitution stipulates that the king has the right of special pardon and commutation of sentence, while general amnesty is decreed by a special law?

The ruling on the ruler's pardon and reduction of punishment varies depending on the type of punishment. If it is a fixed legal hadd (prescribed punishment) for the right of Allah Almighty, it is not permissible to waive or reduce it once it reaches the ruler and is proven by evidence, even if the victim pardons it. As for ta'zir (discretionary punishment) that does not involve a human right, the ruler may pardon it if he sees a legitimate interest.

The jurists have stipulated that there is no pardon, intercession, or waiver for a hadd that is obligatory for the right of Allah Almighty once it reaches the ruler and is proven by evidence. As for ta'zir, jurists differ on pardoning it:

- The Hanafis hold that the Imam may pardon ta'zir that is obligatory for the right of Allah Almighty, unlike that which is for an offense against a servant, where the pardon belongs to the victim. - The Malikis said that if the right is for Allah, it is obligatory like the hudud, unless the Imam predominantly believes that something other than beating, such as blame and speech, serves a greater interest. - Al-Qarafi and Al-Mawardi hold the permissibility of pardoning ta'zir and interceding for it if it is for a human right. If it is solely for the right of sovereignty, then the guardian of affairs may consider what is most beneficial in pardoning and ta'zir. - If ta'zir involves a human right, the guardian of affairs is not permitted to waive the right of the slandered or beaten person by pardoning, and he must ensure their right is fulfilled. If the victim pardons, the guardian of affairs has the option to impose ta'zir or forgive.

Therefore, if the constitution's text addresses pardoning legal hudud after they are proven or ta'zirat related to human rights, it is jurisprudentially null and void.