with whichever of them is earlier, because the killing in banditry also contains a human right, so the earlier of the two is prioritized. If the killing in banditry is earlier, it is carried out, and the diyah (blood money) becomes due to the guardian of the other victim from the perpetrator’s wealth. If the retaliation is earlier, he is killed in retaliation and is not crucified; because crucifixion is a completion of the hadd, and the hadd has lapsed due to the retaliation, so the crucifixion lapses, just as if he had died. The diyah is due to the guardian of the victim of the banditry, because carrying out the killing as retaliation made carrying it out as the hadd impossible, so the obligation shifts to the diyah. Likewise, if the killer in banditry dies, the diyah becomes due from his estate, because it is impossible to carry out the killing upon the killer. If the retaliation was earlier and the guardian of the victim pardoned him, the killing for banditry is carried out, regardless of whether he pardoned him absolutely or on condition of diyah. This is the school of al-Shafi'i. As for amputation, if the obligation of amputation on a hand or foot for retaliation and as a hadd coincide, the retaliation is prioritized over the hadd that is purely for Allah the Almighty, for the reason we mentioned, regardless of whether its cause was earlier or later. If the guardian of the injury pardons, the hadd is carried out. Thus, if he cut off a hand and took wealth in banditry, his hand is cut off as retaliation, and his recovery is awaited. When he recovers, his foot is cut off for the banditry, because they are two hadd punishments. The reason retaliation is prioritized in amputation but not in killing is that amputation in banditry is a pure hadd and not retaliation, whereas killing in banditry entails retaliation. For this reason, if killing in banditry becomes impossible, the diyah becomes due, whereas if the amputation becomes impossible, no substitute is due for it. Once it is established that retaliation is prioritized over amputation in banditry, and his hand is cut off as retaliation, his foot is cut off. But is his other hand cut off? We examine: if the limb cut for retaliation was already entitled to be cut due to banditry before the crime that necessitated the retaliation, then no more than the remaining member of the two members that were entitled to be cut is cut; because the site of the cutting was lost due to an emergent incident, so cutting its substitute is not required, just as if it had been lost due to aggression or disease. Based on this, if both members were lost, the amputation drops from him entirely. If the cause of the cutting for retaliation was earlier than his banditry, or if the limb cut was not