His statement, “with respect to life,” applies if they kill someone legally equal to them.

His statement, “limb,” applies if they sever a limb.

His statement, “and property,” applies if they take property.

An example of this is a group of highway robbers who kill a person and, after killing him and taking his property, come repentant to Allah. In this case, crucifixion is waived from them, as is the mandatory nature of execution. If the heirs of the slain person demand execution and the conditions for retaliation are fulfilled, they are executed by way of retaliation, not as a prescribed punishment. As for the property they took, they are held liable for it, because it is a right belonging to another person.

His statement, “unless they are pardoned for it,” means that if they are pardoned for it, it is waived, because it is a right belonging to another person, and a person’s right is at his own disposal. But is it preferable to pardon them, or to demand compensation from them?

The correct view is that this requires further detail. If the public interest calls for pardoning them, they should be pardoned; but if the public interest calls for holding them liable for it, they should be held liable. For Allah Most High says:

“But whoever pardons and makes reconciliation, his reward is with Allah.” [al-Shura 42:40]

Thus, for the reward from Allah to be established, He stipulated that pardon be accompanied by reconciliation. This is correct. But if pardon would lead to corruption, then pardon is not permissible in that case. If pardon is equally likely to lead either to corruption or to reconciliation, then the side of pardon should be given precedence over holding them liable, because a person has the right to pardon unconditionally.

His statement, “Whoever attacks his life, inviolability, or property, whether a human being or an animal,” refers to assault, which is well known: it means forcibly attacking and transgressing. Thus, whoever attacks his life