of the two crimes necessitates a separate hadd (prescribed penalty); therefore, when they occur together, both penalties become mandatory, just as if one were to commit adultery and theft. A group of scholars held the view that the Imam is given a choice among them regarding execution, crucifixion, amputation, and exile, because the particle "or" (aw) implies a choice, as in His saying, Exalted is He: {so its expiation is the feeding of ten needy people from the average of that which you feed your [own] families or clothing them or the freeing of a slave}. This is the opinion of Sa'id ibn al-Musayyab, 'Ata', Mujahid, al-Hasan, al-Dahhak, al-Nakha'i, Abu al-Zinad, Abu Thawr, and Dawud. It is narrated from Ibn Abbas: Whatever "or" appears in the Quran, its subject has the choice. The proponents of Ra'y (rationalist school) said: If he kills, he is executed; if he takes wealth, he is amputated; and if he kills and takes wealth, the Imam is given a choice between killing and crucifying him, or killing and amputating him, or combining all of these for him, because both acts that necessitate killing and amputation have been committed by him; thus, the Imam may execute both, just as if he had killed and committed theft in a context other than highway robbery. Malik said: If a person commits highway robbery, and the Imam sees that he is a person of sound judgment and wisdom, he executes him; but if he is not a person of judgment, he amputates him, without considering the specific act committed. Our argument, that he is not executed if he did not kill, is the statement of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "The blood of a Muslim man is not lawful except by one of three: kufr (disbelief) after belief, zina (adultery) after marriage, or the unlawful killing of a soul." As for "or," Ibn Abbas has said what is similar to our position, so it is either a matter of revelation or of linguistic usage; in either case, it is an argument. This is further indicated by the fact that the verse begins with the most severe penalty and descends to the less severe. It is the custom of the Quran that where a choice is intended, it begins with the easiest, such as the expiation for an oath, and where ordering is intended, it begins with the most severe, such as the expiations for zihar and killing. It is also indicated by the fact that penalties differ according to the differences in crimes; that is why the rulings for an adulterer, one who accuses others of unchastity (qadhif), and a thief differ. Yet they have treated them as equal here despite the differences in their crimes. This refutes Malik, for he only considered the person's judgment and character, not the crimes themselves, which contradicts the fundamental principles we have mentioned. As for the opinion of Abu Hanifah, it is not correct; because