Whoever among them took property but did not kill had his hand and foot amputated on opposite sides: his right hand was amputated for theft, and his left foot for openly committing highway robbery. Whoever among them attacked others but neither killed nor seized property was subject to retaliation for the injuries he inflicted, if the injury was one for which retaliation applies. The choice belonged to the person entitled to claim it; it became obligatory upon his demanding it, but was not an irrevocable punishment, and was waived by his pardon. If the injury was one for which retaliation did not apply, its prescribed compensation was due to the injured person if he demanded it, and was waived if he pardoned him.
Whoever among them served as a supporter or accomplice was subject to the rulings governing highway robbers, even if he did not personally carry out the act. If they repented of their crimes after being overpowered, their sins were lifted from them, but not the wrongs they had committed against others; they were therefore held liable for the fixed penalties and rights due from them. If they repented before being apprehended, Allah’s fixed legal penalties, along with the sins, were waived, but the rights of other people were not. Thus, if any of them had killed someone, the victim’s heir could choose either retaliation or pardon. Repentance removed the obligatory nature of execution, amputation, and crucifixion.
The rulings governing highway robbers and armed brigands apply in cities just as they apply in the open desert. Aḥmad, may Allah have mercy on him, was asked about armed brigands in a city, but he withheld an answer. Al-Khiraqi stated in his Mukhtaṣar: “The armed brigands are those who confront people in the desert with weapons.”
When they claim repentance before being apprehended, the matter must be examined. If their claim is not accompanied by indications pointing to repentance, their claim is not accepted as grounds for waiving the fixed penalties. If their claim is accompanied by indications pointing to repentance, it is accepted, so that this may constitute a doubt sufficient to avert the fixed punishment.
The basis for this is found in something Aḥmad said, as reported by Abū Dāwūd and Mihna. In a report by Abū Dāwūd, concerning a military detachment that entered Byzantine territory, some Byzantine men encountered them, and the detachment captured them. They said, “We have come seeking safe-conduct.” When an indication concerning their claim was sought, it was said, “They stopped and did not unsheathe their weapons.” He therefore held that they were entitled to safe-conduct.