Section: The ruling on the auxiliary (rid') among the highway robbers is the same as that of the primary perpetrator (mubashir). This is the view held by Malik and Abu Hanifa. Al-Shafi'i stated: "The auxiliary receives nothing but discretionary punishment (ta'zir), because the hadd punishment is necessitated by the commission of the act of disobedience, and thus it does not attach to the assistant, as is the case with all other hadd punishments." Our position is that this is a ruling pertaining to highway robbery (muharabah), and therefore the auxiliary and the primary perpetrator are equal therein, just as they are in the entitlement to war booty. This is because highway robbery is predicated upon the attainment of power, mutual support, and assistance; thus, the primary perpetrator cannot execute his act without the strength of the auxiliary, unlike other hadd punishments. Based on this, if one of them kills, the ruling of murder is established for all of them, and it becomes obligatory to kill all of them. If some of them kill and others take the property, it is permissible to kill and crucify them, just as if every one of them had committed both acts.

Section: If there is among them a child, a person of unsound mind, or a relative (dhu rahim) of the person who was robbed, the hadd punishment does not drop for the others, according to the opinion of the majority of scholars. Abu Hanifa said: "The hadd punishment drops for all of them, and the matter of killing is transferred to the heirs; if they wish, they kill, and if they wish, they pardon," because the ruling for all is one, so a doubt (shubhah) in one act is a doubt in the right of all. Our position is that this is a doubt specific to one individual, so the hadd punishment does not drop for the rest, just as if they had participated in the intercourse with a woman. What they mentioned has no basis. Accordingly, there is no hadd punishment upon the child and the person of unsound mind, even if they committed the killing and took the property, because they are not among those liable for hadd punishments. They are responsible for the liability (daman) of the property taken from their own wealth, and the blood money (diyah) for the one they killed is upon their kin ('aqilah), and there is nothing upon their auxiliary; for if this is not established for the primary perpetrator, it is not established for the one who is a follower to him, a fortiori. If the primary perpetrator is someone other than them, nothing is binding upon them, because the ruling of highway robbery was not established for them, and the establishment of the ruling for the auxiliary is established through the highway robbery.

Section: If there is a woman among them, the ruling of highway robbery is established for her. Whenever she kills or takes property, her punishment is that of the highway robbers. This is the view held by al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa stated: "The hadd punishment is not obligatory upon her, nor upon those with her, because she is not among those who commit highway robbery, like the man, so she resembles the child and the person of unsound mind."