For if the execution were mandatory due to a right of Allah, the Exalted, the Imam would not be given a choice regarding it, just as in the amputation of a thief, and as in the case where one commits only the act of taking wealth. This is because when the hadd punishments for Allah, the Exalted, involve execution, the lesser penalties are dropped, just as if one were to steal and commit adultery while being muhsan (formerly married). It has been narrated from Ibn Abbas that he said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) made a peace treaty with Abu Barzah al-Aslami, then some people came wanting to embrace Islam, but his companions intercepted them. Then Jibril (peace be upon him) descended with the hadd concerning them: that whoever kills and takes wealth is to be executed and crucified; whoever kills and does not take wealth is to be executed; and whoever takes wealth and does not kill is to have his hand and foot amputated from opposite sides. It is said that Abu Dawud narrated it. This is equivalent to being musnad (supported by a chain) and is an explicit text (nass). When this is established, the highway robber is subject to one of five situations: The first is when he kills and takes wealth; he is to be executed and crucified, according to the manifest view of the school (Madhab), and his execution is mandatory (mutahattim) and cannot be overturned by pardon. All scholars have reached a consensus on this. Ibn al-Mundhir said: All those of the people of knowledge from whom we preserve information have reached a consensus on this. It has been narrated from Umar. Sulayman ibn Musa, al-Zuhri, Malik, al-Shafi'i, and the proponents of Ra'y also held this view. This is because it is a hadd from the hudud (prescribed penalties) of Allah, the Exalted, and it is not dropped by pardon, like other hudud. Is the equality between the killer and the killed taken into account? There are two narrations regarding this. One is that it is not taken into account, but rather the free person is taken for the slave, the Muslim for the dhimmi, and the father for the son; because this killing is a hadd of Allah, the Exalted, and equivalence (mukafa'ah) is not considered in it, like adultery and theft. The second is that equivalence is taken into account, due to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "A Muslim shall not be executed for a disbeliever." The hadd is defined by its mandatory nature; the proof being that if he were to repent before being apprehended, the mandatory nature would be dropped, whereas qisas (retaliatory killing) would not be dropped. Therefore, according to this narration, if a Muslim kills a dhimmi, or a free person kills a slave, and takes his wealth, his hand and foot are to be amputated from opposite sides for taking the wealth, and he must pay the blood money (diyah) of the dhimmi or the value of the slave. If he killed him but did not take any wealth, he must pay his blood money and is to be exiled.