Abu Hanifah. This is a specification without a scriptural basis, so it is not permissible. Furthermore, it outwardly leads to his decomposition, stench, and the harm of the Muslims through his odor and sight, and it prevents his ritual washing, shrouding, and burial, so it is not permissible without evidence. The third matter is its obligation, and this is a mandatory (hatm) obligation in the case of one who killed and took wealth; it is not dropped by pardon or anything else. The proponents of Ra'y said: If the Imam wishes, he may crucify, and if he wishes, he may not. Our argument is the hadith of Ibn Abbas, [that Jibril] descended [stating] that whoever killed and took wealth is to be crucified. It is also because it was legislated as a hadd, so there is no choice between performing it or leaving it, like killing and other hudud. When this is established, once his state becomes well-known, he is taken down and handed over to his family, and he is then washed, shrouded, prayed over, and buried.

Section: If he dies before he is killed, he is not to be crucified; because crucifixion is part of the completion of the hadd, and the hadd has been missed by his death, so that which is part of its completion is dropped. If he killed during the muharabah with a heavy object, he is to be killed, just as if he had killed with a sharp object; because they are equal in the obligation of qisas by both. If he killed with a tool that does not necessitate qisas when killing with it, such as a whip, a staff, or a small stone, then the manifest meaning of the words of al-Khiraqi is that they are also to be killed, because they entered into the generality. The second situation: They killed but did not take wealth; they are to be killed and not crucified. There is another narration from Ahmad that they are to be crucified; because they are muharibun (armed robbers) for whom killing is obligatory, so they are to be crucified, like those who took wealth. The first view is more correct; because the report narrated regarding them said in it: "And whoever killed and did not take wealth is to be killed," and it did not mention crucifixion. Also, their crime of taking wealth along with killing exceeds the crime of killing alone, so their punishment must be harsher. If crucifixion were legislated here, they would be equal, and the ruling regarding the mandatory nature of the killing and its being a hadd here is like the ruling concerning it when one kills and takes wealth.

Section: If the muharib inflicts a wound for which there is qisas, is the qisas mandatory in it? There are two narrations: One is that it is not mandatory; because the Sharia did not specify the hadd in...