The same applies to “highway robbers” and “thieves.” This concerns the public interest, not private rights. People cannot be secure in their lives and property, in their homes or on the roads, unless such offenders are deterred by amputation. Requiring each of them to swear an oath does not deter them.

For this reason, the jurists agree that a highway robber acting to seize property must be executed, and that his execution is a prescribed punishment owed to Allah, not a matter left to the discretion of the slain person’s next of kin. They explain that he did not kill the victim because of any personal grievance against him; rather, he killed him for his property. To him, there is no difference between this victim and anyone else. Executing him therefore serves the public interest, and the ruler must enforce it.

Likewise, a “thief” does not seek one particular person’s property; rather, he seeks to take this person’s property and that person’s property. Thus, amputating his hand is a binding right owed to Allah, not to the property owner. The owner recovers his property, and the thief’s hand is amputated. Even if the owner says, “I give him my property,” the punishment of amputation is not waived. Thus, Safwān said to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace:

“I give him my cloak.”

The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, replied:

“Why did you not do that before bringing him?”

The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, also said:

“Whoever intercedes to prevent one of Allah’s prescribed punishments has opposed Allah in His command. Whoever knowingly argues a false case remains under Allah’s displeasure until he desists. Whoever says something about a Muslim that is not true of him will be confined in Radghat al-Khabāl—the mire of filth—until he frees himself from what he has said.”

He also said to al-Zubayr ibn al-‘Awwām:

“Once cases involving prescribed punishments reach the ruler, may Allah curse the intercessor and the one whose intercession is accepted.”