The second view holds that his repentance is effected simply by abandoning his crime, remaining where he is, and allowing himself to be seen by his neighbors. Should the imam reach him before his repentance has become evident, the ḥadd is carried out against him. This is the opinion of Ibn al-Mājishūn.

The third view states that repentance is valid only when he comes in person to the imam; if he merely ceases his aggression but is seized before presenting himself, none of the legal consequences are lifted from him.

In sum, three formulations have been advanced regarding the repentance that cancels the ruling:

1. That he must reach the imam before being overpowered.
2. That it suffices for the signs of repentance to appear before he is apprehended.
3. That both conditions together are required.

As for the type of highway robber whose repentance is accepted, the jurists also differed on three opinions:

1. That he must have fled to the land of war.
2. That he must have a supporting band.
3. That his repentance is accepted in all cases—whether or not he has a band, and whether or not he had joined the land of war.

They further disagreed about a highway robber who entrenches himself but receives a pledge of safety (amān) from the imam on condition that he surrender. One opinion grants him that safety and drops the prescribed penalty for ḥirābah; another denies him any safety, arguing that amān is granted only to a polytheist.

Concerning the liabilities that repentance removes, there are four views:

1. Repentance lifts only the ḥadd of ḥirābah; all other divine rights and the rights of human beings remain. This is Mālik’s position.
2. Repentance removes the ḥadd of ḥirābah and all other divine penalties—such as adultery, drinking, and the amputation for theft—yet he remains answerable for people’s claims to property and blood unless the heirs of the slain pardon him.
3. Repentance erases all divine rights; he is, however, still liable for blood, and for property only what is found intact in his possession may be reclaimed—no claims are pursued against his personal liability.
4. Repentance extinguishes every right of God and of human beings, in both property and blood, except for property that is still present in his hand.

[Chapter Five: How Ḥirābah Is Established]

Chapter Five discusses the evidentiary basis for this crime. The ḥadd is established by confession or by testimony. Mālik accepts the testimony of the victims against their assailants.

Al-Shāfiʿī holds that the testimony of fellow travelers is admissible, provided they do not claim, for themselves or their companions, any property that was taken. According to Mālik, ḥirābah may also be proven by testimony heard at second hand.

Section: The Ruling on Combatants Acting on (Erroneous) Interpretation

When those who fight on the basis of a misconstrued interpretation are opposed by the imam, and one of them is captured, he is not to be killed unless fighting is still in progress. Mālik said that the imam may kill him if he deems it necessary, for fear that the prisoner might aid his comrades against the Muslims. If he is taken after hostilities have ended, he is treated like an innovator who does not propagate his innovation; he