As for the Sunnah:
(a) They cite the well–attested incident of a slave-girl who was found with her head crushed between two stones. She was asked, “Who has done this to you?—So-and-so? So-and-so?” until a certain Jew was named; she nodded in assent. The man was apprehended, confessed, and the Prophet ﷺ ordered that his head be crushed with stones.
They argue that the Prophet ﷺ commanded the Jew’s execution without referring the matter to the girl’s heirs. Had the ruling been qiṣāṣ (retaliation), the right would have belonged to them. This, they say, proves that he executed him as a ḥadd, not as qiṣāṣ.
(b) They also invoke the Prophet’s ﷺ execution of the ʿUraniyyīn, who had murdered the camel-herders; he killed them as perpetrators of ḥirābah and ghīlah, and there is no report that he gave the herders’ heirs any choice. Were it a case of qiṣāṣ, he would have consulted them. Hence he executed them as a ḥadd, not as retaliation.
Accordingly, murder by ghīlah is subject to a distinct ruling that differs from other forms of deliberate, unjust homicide.

As for the transmitted reports: among them is the established narration that ʿUmar (d. 23 AH) ordered the execution of a group who had jointly murdered a boy in Ṣanʿāʾ. In another wording he said, “Had all the people of Ṣanʿāʾ conspired in his killing, I would have executed them all.”
This was the judgement of the rightly guided caliph concerning ghīlah murder. There is no report that he consulted the victim’s heirs; had they possessed the right of pardon he would have referred the matter to them. Nor is there any record of a Companion objecting to his decision.

As for analogy: because ghīlah murder is usually carried out through stealth, deception, and catching the victim unawares—making it virtually impossible to guard against—it resembles homicide committed by ḥirābah and violent assault, for the prescribed punishment for each of them is