Islamic Fiqh > Penalties (hudud) > Maharaba: brigandage and public insecurity > Brigandage: definition, conditions and punishments
Contents
Updated on 24 September 2026 at 12:48 AM
This section is part of the full chapter: All sections of this chapter.
The Shafi'is define highway robbery (qat' al-tariq) as: coming out openly, relying on armed strength, in order to seize property, kill or terrorize, far beyond the reach of help (Asna al-Matabib 4/154; Mughni al-Muhtaj 5/494).
The Hanbalis define the brigands as: the highway robbers who assault people with a weapon, even a stick or stones, in open country, in a built-up area or at sea, and who seize protected property by open force (al-Mughni 9/124; Sharh al-Zarkashi 3/137; Kashshaf al-Qina' 6/190; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 6/261).
Brigandage and highway robbery are among the major sins and belong to the fixed penalties (hudud) by consensus of the people of knowledge. Allah called their authors « those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger » and « those who strive to spread corruption in the land », and He made their retribution severe beyond compare: « The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land is only that they be killed, or crucified, or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides, or that they be banished from the land. That is for them disgrace in this world, and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment » (Surah al-Ma'ida, verse 33).
The encyclopaedia cites in support the report narrated by Abu Qilaba from Anas (may Allah be pleased with him): a delegation of the tribe of 'Ukl came to the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and lodged in the portico of Madina; the climate of the city weighed on them. They said: « Messenger of Allah, provide us with mounts. » He replied: « I find nothing better for you than to join the she-camels of the Messenger of Allah. » They joined them, drank their milk and their urine until they recovered and grew strong, then they killed the shepherd.
If the brigands seek the victim's blood, he may repel them, even by killing them, by consensus. The defence of property, however, is not obligatory: he may hand over the property without fighting. As for the defence of one's person, whether it is obligatory is the subject of two views, which are two narrations from Ahmad (Majmu' al-Fatawa 34/242).
The imam Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said: there is consensus that when a man brandishes a weapon over another to kill him, and the victim defends himself and kills the assailant, the victim incurs nothing (Fath al-Bari 12/222).
The jurists of the four schools agree that puberty and reason are two conditions of the penalty of brigandage: it applies neither to the insane nor to the child, even one close to puberty. The penalty punishes an offence, yet the act of the child and the insane is not qualified as an offence; that is why the amputation of the thief does not concern them either. They remain liable for the property and the blood, as for any damage caused outside this state (Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 7/91; al-Mudawwana 16/302; Rawdat at-Talibin 6/595; Mughni al-Muhtaj 5/494; al-Mughni 9/131; Kashshaf al-Qina' 6/190).
The jurists differ when a child, an insane person or an unmarriageable relative (mahram) is among the brigands: does the penalty fall for the others? Abu Hanifa and Zufar: yes, it falls for all the others, for the offence is one and engages them all; if the act of one does not make the penalty due, the act of the rest is only part of the cause, insufficient to establish it, as when the unwitting and the deliberate author join in a killing. The unmarriageable relative benefits from an ambiguity over his relative's property, like the falling of amputation for theft between relatives; once the penalty has fallen, the choice over the blood returns to the heirs: kill or pardon. Abu Yusuf distinguishes: if the child or the insane person directly carried out the seizure, no one is punished, for they are the leaders and the others followers; if the sane adults directly carried it out, they alone are punished (Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 7/91; al-Ikhtiyar 4/139; ad-Durr al-Mukhtar 4/113).
According to the majority of the jurists, reported by Ibn Qudama as the view of most people of knowledge, the penalty does not fall for the others: the ambiguity belongs to one alone and does not harm the others' case, as when several share intercourse with one woman: the ambiguity of one does not remove the penalty of the others. On this basis: no penalty on the child and the insane, even if they kill and seize property, but they owe compensation for the property from their own wealth, and the blood money for their victim lies upon their kinship group ('aqila); nothing burdens their helper; and if someone other than them performed the act, nothing lies upon them, for the regime of brigandage was not established regarding them (al-Mughni 9/131).
In the apparent view of the Hanafi school, masculinity is a condition: if a woman leads the combat and the seizure instead of the men, the penalty does not apply to her according to the known narration (al-Kasani, Bada'i' as-Sana'i'). The detail of their school, when a woman is among them and leads the killing and the seizure without the men doing it: Abu Yusuf said: I kill the men and treat them as brigands, and I do not kill the woman. Muhammad, and it is narrated from Abu Hanifa: I kill her if she killed, she guarantees the property if she took it, and I do not kill the men: I beat them and imprison them. Another narration from Abu Hanifa: the penalty falls for all, for the killing combines one who incurs the penalty and one who does not, like the deliberate and the unwitting author.
The justification of the known narration: the essence of brigandage, openly confronting travellers by force and overpowering, is not usually realized from women, given the softness of their hearts and the weakness of their constitution: they are not among the people of war, which is why they are not killed in the land of war; theft escapes this reasoning, for it is a secret taking, which femininity does not prevent.
At-Tahawi (may Allah have mercy on him) objects: women and men are equal in highway robbery, and according to the analogy of the verse the penalty applies to her as to the men. Justification: this penalty places man and woman on an equal footing like the other fixed penalties: if it is amputation, masculinity is not required, as in theft; if it is execution, likewise, as the stoning of the married woman guilty of fornication.
For Abu Hanifa and Muhammad, the men accompanying her incur no penalty, whether they acted directly or not; their justification: the cause of the penalty is one, highway robbery, realized both by one who incurs the penalty and by one who does not: the penalty is therefore not due, as when a child or an insane person is among them. Abu Yusuf distinguished the child and the woman: when the child acts directly, no penalty on the adults who did not act directly; when the woman acts directly, all are punished like men. For the woman's exclusion is not a lack of legal capacity: she is a subject of obligation, all other penalties attach to her acts; it comes from the habitual absence or deficiency of warring in her, which does not exist in men. The child's exclusion comes from the absence of capacity: he is not a subject of obligations, hence of any penalty, and the follower falls with him.
According to the majority of the jurists, Hanafis in one view, Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, masculinity is not required of highway robbers: no difference between men and women. If a woman is among them, the regime of brigandage is established regarding her: if she kills and seizes property, her penalty is that of the highway robbers, for she incurs the penalty of theft, so the regime of brigandage reaches her like the man; she is a subject of obligation, subject to retaliation and all the penalties. If she directly commits the killing or the seizure, the regime is established for her companions, for they are her helpers; and if another commits the act, the regime is established for her, for she is his helper, the equal of a man (al-Mudawwana 16/302; al-Umm 4/293; Rawdat at-Talibin 6/597; Mughni al-Muhtaj 5/494; al-Mughni 9/131).
The jurists differ concerning the brigands: must they be Muslims, in which case brigandage would not be valid from protected non-Muslims (dhimmis), or is it valid from anyone bound by the rules of Islam, such as the dhimmis? This is how the question is posed in the encyclopaedia.
Hanafis and Hanbalis (the view of the school) require a weapon: without a weapon they are not brigands, for they do not stop anyone who comes at them. The weapon includes for them the stick, the stone, wood and the like (Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 7/90-91; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 4/113; al-Mughni 9/125; al-Mubdi' 9/145; al-Insaf 10/291).
According to the Malikis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis in another view, brandishing the weapon is not required: those who go out with sticks and stones are highway robbers, overpowering suffices. Whoever goes out without a weapon, as a sneak thief, but seizes the property by open force, is a brigand; whoever whose strength overpowers, even by shoving and beating, is a brigand (Hashiyat ad-Dusuki 6/356; Rawdat at-Talibin 6/597; Mughni al-Muhtaj 5/495; al-Insaf 10/291).
Hanafis (apparent narration) and Hanbalis (one view, and the apparent sense of al-Kharqi's words) require distance from inhabited areas: the brigands must operate in the desert of the land of Islam, at travelling distance from villages and towns; the intermediate zone does not qualify for the Hanafis (al-Lubab 2/335; ad-Durr al-Mukhtar 4/113). The reason: the penalty bears the name of « cutting the road », which belongs to the desert; and whoever operates in a town usually receives help, the strength of the aggressors falls, and they are no more than snatchers, upon whom the penalty does not bear (al-Mughni 9/124; al-Kafi 4/170; al-Mubdi' 9/146).
The Malikis require of the brigands a situation where help is impossible: if the property is taken in a situation where help remains possible, the author is not a brigand but a usurper, even if he is a sultan: for the scholars, the people of deliberation, disapprove of the sultan and call him to account. By contrast, the despots, like the rulers of Egypt and their like, who seize the Muslims' property, withhold their sustenance and fall upon their lands with no possible recourse to the scholars or anyone else, are brigands. Any scheme aimed at taking property in a situation where recourse is habitually impossible belongs to brigandage (Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 8/104; ash-Sharh al-Kabir with the Hashiyat ad-Dusuki 6/359-360; at-Tahbir 5/390).
The Shafi'i view is close to the Malikis': the brigands must be beyond the reach of help, the loss of help coming from the distance of the sultan and his aides, or from his weakness, so that they can seize and overpower by open force. Thus of a group spreading trouble in a town, an army falling upon a borough or village, or the inhabitants of one end of a city falling upon the other end: if no help reaches the victims, they are highway robbers; otherwise, they are plunderers. And if people enter a house by night, overpower its people and prevent them from calling for help while the sultan is strong and present: the sounder view is that they are highway robbers; it was also said: thieves; and: snatchers (Rawdat at-Talibin 6/597; an-Najm al-Wahhaj 9/204; Mughni al-Muhtaj 5/495).
According to the view of the Hanbali school, and Abu Yusuf among the Hanafis, distance is not required: every highway robber who went out to take the property, whether in desert, built-up area or sea, is a brigand, according to the generality of the verse of al-Ma'ida 33, which does not distinguish desert from town; and if these penalties are due to them when they act in the desert, the place of fear, they are due to them all the more in the town, the place of security, for to perpetrate there is an object of greater fear and graver harm (al-Mughni 9/124; al-Kafi 4/170; al-Insaf 10/291). The fatwa among the Hanafis follows Abu Yusuf: in town, by night with or without a weapon, or by day with a weapon, the regime of the highway robbers applies; the masters so ruled to repel the evil of corrupt strongmen (al-Lubab 2/335; ad-Durr al-Mukhtar 4/113).
The majority of the jurists of the four schools require that the highway robbers act in the open and take the property by overpowering and open confrontation. If they take it secretly, they are thieves; if they snatch it and flee, they are plunderers, without amputation; their case, for retaliation and compensation, is that of anyone else. Likewise, one or two men who fall upon the rear of a caravan, snatch something and flee are not brigands: they rely on no protective strength; but if they fall upon a small number and overpower it, they are highway robbers, their strength being power in relation to those victims (Fath al-Qadir 5/354-355; Bahr ar-Ra'iq 5/54; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 4/84; ash-Sharh al-Kabir with the Hashiyat ad-Dusuki 6/359; Mughni al-Muhtaj 5/495; al-Mughni 9/125; Kashshaf al-Qina' 6/190-191; Manar as-Sabil 3/347).
The majority of the jurists, Hanafis, Malikis and Shafi'is, hold that no number is required: a single man endowed with superior strength that overpowers the group, openly attacking persons and property, is a highway robber (Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 7/90; al-Lubab 2/335; at-Taj wa-l-Iklil 5/363; Rawdat at-Talibin 6/597; Mughni al-Muhtaj 5/495).
For the majority of the jurists, the penalty of brigandage is established by the testimony of two upright witnesses. The Malikis add: if the brigand is notorious and his brigandage widespread and known, and two men attest it by identifying him: « this is so-and-so, known for brigandage », brigandage is established by their testimony, and the imam may apply the penalty upon him and kill him, even if they were not eyewitnesses of the killing, the robbery or the cutting of the road (at-Taj wa-l-Iklil 5/366; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 8/107; ash-Sharh al-Kabir with the Hashiyat ad-Dusuki 6/365; at-Tahbir 5/396-397).
The jurists differ over two witnesses from the caravan attesting: « these men attacked us, abused us and took our goods ». Shafi'is and Hanbalis: their testimony is not valid, for they are parties to the case; it remains open to them to testify: « these men attacked those, did such and such to them and took such and such from them, and we are watching », and the imam may not probe them beyond that. Al-Mawardi details (al-Hawi al-Kabir 13/372-373; al-Umm 6/153): if a group claims against others the cutting of the road, the seizure of property and the killing: upon confession, they are held by it for persons and property; upon denial without proof, the oath is demanded of them; if some confess and others deny, the confessor is punished by his confession and the denier swears; the testimony of the confessor against the denier is not heard, because of his viciousness as a highway robber.
If two witnesses say: « we testify that these men cut the road on us, took our property and killed some of us », their testimony is refused, for two reasons: they have become parties among the claimants, and a man's testimony for himself is a claim that is rejected; and they have become enemies of those against whom they testify, and the testimony of an enemy against his enemy is rejected. If they begin otherwise: « we testify that these men cut the road on those, took such property and killed such a person », their testimony is valid: they may be strangers to the claimants. Some Iraqis require the judge to ask them whether they were of the travelling party; this is not correct: the presumption of uprightness carries the testimony to validity rather than nullity.
Ibn Qudama (al-Mughni 9/134): if two upright witnesses testify that a man cut the road on them and on so-and-so and took their goods, their testimony is not received: they have become his parties; if they say: « we testify that this man cut the road on so-and-so and took his goods », it is received, without the judge asking whether he also cut the road on them; if the wronged party later returns to testify against him, his testimony is refused: he has become his enemy; and if they testify: « these men attacked us on the road and cut it on so-and-so », it is received: their standing as parties is not established by what they reported.
The Malikis: the testimony of two men of the caravan is valid: they say that testimony against the brigands from those they attacked is admissible if they are upright, for there is no other way to convict them. And their internal rules: no one testifies for himself; some testify for the others, which is valid; if they testify for themselves together with others (« he took our companions' property and ours »), the deposition is rejected, unless their property is trivial: it is then valid for them and for the others (at-Taj wa-l-Iklil 5/366; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 8/107).
The jurists of Islam agree: the penalty of brigandage and highway robbery is a fixed penalty of Allah, which the ruler may neither withdraw nor pardon, except for repentance before power is had over them; the basis is the word of Allah: « The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land is only that they be killed, or crucified, or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides, or that they be banished from the land. That is for them disgrace in this world, and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment, except for those who repent before you gain power over them. Know then that Allah is Forgiving, Merciful » (Surah al-Ma'ida, verses 33-34).
They then differ: is this ruling a choice left to the imam, who would do whatever he sees fit, or a graduated distribution where each penalty answers an offence that does not extend beyond it? The majority of the jurists, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad among the Hanafis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, read the verse as distribution, not choice. The cases are of four kinds:
The proofs of the graduated distribution according to the penalty are as follows.
First, what al-Shafi'i reports, through Ibrahim, from the freed client of at-Taw'ama, from Ibn Abbas concerning the highway robbers:
If they kill and seize the property: let them be killed and crucified; if they kill without seizing the property: let them be killed without being crucified; if they seize the property without killing: let their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides; if they flee: let them be pursued until they are found, and the penalties applied upon them; and if they terrorize the road without seizing property: let them be banished from the land.Reported by al-Shafi'i in al-Musnad 1531 and in al-Umm 6/152, and by al-Bayhaqi in as-Sunan al-Kubra 17090; weak chain: the freed client of at-Taw'ama in it is closer to weakness
Either Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) held this from a source, or he said it by knowledge: in either case, it is an argument.
Second, what is narrated from Ibn Abbas: the Messenger of Allah (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had concluded a truce with Abu Burza al-Aslami; people came wanting to embrace Islam, and his companions waylaid them:
Jibril (peace be upon him) came down with the penalty concerning them: whoever killed and seized the property shall be killed and crucified; whoever killed without seizing the property shall be killed; whoever seized the property without killing shall have his hand and foot cut off from opposite sides; and whoever comes as a Muslim, Islam destroys whatever of polytheism preceded it.Reported by Abu Yusuf the judge in al-Kharaj, p. 108; weak chain
From this it is known that the « or » in the verse is neither choice nor doubt, but distribution.
Third, the saying of the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him):
The blood of a Muslim who attests that there is no deity except Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah is lawful only in one of three cases: the married fornicator, a life for a life, and the one who abandons his religion and separates from the community.Al-Bukhari 6878; Muslim 4468
The Prophet excluded execution outside these three ways, without singling out the highway robber within it: the execution of the highway robber who did not kill is therefore excluded, and once excluded, the amputation of his hand and foot is due to him if he seized the property.
Fourth, everyone's agreement that if the brigands seized property without killing, the imam may not banish them and leave the amputation of their hands and feet; likewise, if they killed and seized, the imam may not exempt them from execution or crucifixion. If there were choice, it would hold in these two cases; since it does not, the verse carries an implied determination: execution if they killed; crucifixion if they killed and seized; cross-amputation if they seized without killing; banishment if they went out and did none of that until they were seized.
Fifth, the difference of penalties requires the difference of causes; and choice would lead to punishing the slightest offence with the heaviest penalty and the gravest offence with the lightest, whereas distribution prevents this contradiction: the lesser offence is punished with the lighter penalty and the great offence with the heaviest, for the recompense of the offence grows with it and shrinks with it; this is the requirement of reason as of revelation: « The retribution of an evil is an evil like it » (Surah ash-Shura, verse 40). The community agreed that highway robbers who seized property and killed are not punished with banishment alone, although the apparent sense of the verse suggests choice between the four parts: one cannot therefore hold to the apparent sense of choice. The « or » of choice keeps its sense only when the cause is one, as in the expiation of an oath and the expiation of hunting; if the cause differs, it states the ruling of each case in itself, as for Dhul-Qarnayn: « We said: O Dhul-Qarnayn, either you punish, or you take towards them a goodly course » (Surah al-Kahf, verse 86): not a choice between the two, but the ruling of each case: « As for whoever is unjust, We shall punish him » (Surah al-Kahf, verse 87); « But as for whoever believes and does righteousness, he shall have the best reward » (Surah al-Kahf, verse 88).
The imam Abu Hanifa follows the view of Abu Yusuf, Muhammad, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, except in one case: whoever killed and seized the property. For Abu Hanifa, the imam there chooses between three things: first, if he wishes, cut off their hands and feet from opposite sides in retribution for the seizure of the property, then kill and crucify them in retribution for the killing; second, if he wishes, kill them only; third, if he wishes, crucify them only: each involves destruction and suffices for deterrence (Ahkam al-Qur'an 4/54-58; al-Mabsut 9/195-198; Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 7/93-94; al-Hidaya 2/132; al-Ikhtiyar 4/137-138).
The Malikis read the verse as a choice between execution, crucifixion, amputation and banishment: the « or » enters language for choice in commands and for doubt in reports, and this is a command: it holds as choice, as in the expiation of an oath. The imam chooses among these penalties and consults for it the people of knowledge, counsel and merit, according to the measure of the brigand's crime and corruption, and this belongs to none but the imam (al-Istidhkar 7/552-553; Ahkam al-Qur'an 2/98-99; at-Taj wa-l-Iklil 5/364-365).
Unless the brigand has killed: his execution is then mandatory, whether the victim was his equal, a free Muslim, and even if it was a disbeliever or a slave killed by a free Muslim, or with his help, even by his mere standing: he is killed for brigandage, with or without crucifixion, without amputation and without banishment; and the victim's heir may not pardon before the brigand comes repentant; if he comes repentant, the heir may pardon, for his execution is then a retaliation which does not fall by his coming repentant, but by the heir's pardon.
If he is seized without having killed, the imam chooses among four penalties, acting by interest: first, kill him without crucifixion; second, kill him while crucified; third, cut his right hand at the wrist and his left foot at the ankle joint; fourth, the banishment of the free male, as he is banished for fornication, with imprisonment up to one year at most and until repentance appears, and the beating before banishment belongs to the governor's judgment. This choice among the four holds for the male brigand; as for the woman, she is neither crucified nor banished: her penalty is execution or cross-amputation.
It is recommended for the imam to consider the brigand who has not killed: one who has strategy in wars and in escaping them, execution is mandatory for him rather than amputation, for his harm cannot be warded off; the brigand who is a man of grip and bravery, cross-amputation is mandatory for him; one who has neither, and whose brigandage was a lapse contrary to his usual state, beating and banishment are mandatory for him: he is beaten and banished. Then it is the imam who determines what he does with the brigand among the four penalties, not the victim whose hand was cut or the like: she or he has no right in this, for what the imam does to the brigand is not in answer to a specific deed, but to the whole of his brigandage: terror, seizure of property and wounds.
The helper (rid') is he who assists the highway robbers without directly killing or seizing the property. The jurists differ over his fate.
The majority of the jurists, Hanafis, Malikis and Hanbalis: his regime is that of the direct perpetrator, for the cutting of the road is realized by all of them: such is the custom of robbers, some performing the act directly, others assisting to repel; if the helper's contribution were not attached to the perpetrator's act in the cause of the penalty, it would open the door of brigandage and close the door of its penalty, which is repugnant. This penalty depends on warring: the helper equals the perpetrator in it, as the spoils go to the fighter and to the one present: the one as incentive, the penalty as deterrence; and the direct perpetrator could only seize with the boosting of the helper who multiplies the force: the seizure is thus also imputed to him. The helper is a corrupting brigand: he stands so that the perpetrator may seize, kills if he can and repels obstacles, and the direct perpetrator would join him if need arose; all of them are corrupting brigands under the verse of al-Ma'ida 33; that is why killing the lookout of rebels is lawful: were he not a warrior, killing him would not be lawful (Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 7/90-91; al-Ikhtiyar 4/139; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq 3/238).
Ibn Batal (may Allah have mercy on him): the helper's regime, in all the rulings of Islam, is that of the fighter, likewise for repelling thieves and brigands according to Malik and most of the Kufans: he is killed for their killing and incurs what they incur, even if they were not present at the act (Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari 1/47). Ibn al-'Arabi: most of the scholars agreed that the helper is judged as the fighter (Ahkam al-Qur'an 1/150); and if the brigands fight a caravan and some kill while others do not: all of them are killed; al-Shafi'i: only the one who killed is killed, and this is built upon the imam's choice and the distribution of the rulings already seen (Ahkam al-Qur'an 2/101). This is supported by the share of the spoils of whoever attends the battle without having killed: the brigand is a stronger case.
Ibn Qudama: the regime of the helper of the robbers is that of the direct perpetrator; so said Malik and Abu Hanifa; al-Shafi'i said: nothing upon the helper but discipline (ta'zir), for the fixed penalty arises from committing the disobedience and does not attach to the one who assists, like the other penalties. Our proof: this penalty depends on warring, in which helper and perpetrator are equal, like entitlement to the spoils; brigandage is built upon protective strength, mutual aid and support: the direct perpetrator only accomplishes his deed with the helper's force. If one of them kills, the regime of killing is established for all: all of them must be killed; and if some killed while others seized the property, killing and crucifying all of them is permitted, as if each had done both (al-Mughni 9/131; al-Kafi 4/169).
Ibn Taymiyya (may Allah have mercy on him): likewise for the penalty: the helper and the direct perpetrator among the brigands are killed according to the majority of the jurists, as 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) had the lookout of brigands killed; it is the view of Malik, Abu Hanifa and Ahmad, and Malik's school applies it also to premeditated killing and to theft (Majmu' al-Fatawa 14/48).
The Shafi'is: whoever is present, multiplies the ranks, inspires awe or serves as reserve is disciplined and imprisoned, for Allah's penalties fall upon the direct perpetrators, not upon the helper who assists by multiplying, awe or support. The proof: the prophetic saying of the three only lawful causes of execution already cited: the helper performs none of them, so his blood is not lawful. And by analogy: it is a penalty due for a disobedience, so it is not imposed upon the one who assists in it, like the penalties of fornication, slander and theft; and when the contributory cause and the direct act unite and compensation attaches to the direct act, the effect of the cause falls: like the one who holds and the one who slaughters: compensation lies upon the one who slaughters, not the one who holds; and the digger of the well and the one who pushes: compensation lies upon the one who pushes, not the digger; likewise the union of the helper and the perpetrator in brigandage.
Once it is established that no fixed penalty lies upon the helper, two views on his punishment: the sounder: the imam disciplines him by his judgment, with imprisonment, removal or the other ways of correction, as for other disobediences; the second: the imam exiles him wherever he sees, choosing a direction watched by the brave men among the imam's companions, and if he fixes a direction, he forbids him to deviate from it; then two views on whether he is also disciplined in the place of exile, with beating or imprisonment: the sounder: it belongs to the imam's judgment and to what the interest requires (al-Hawi al-Kabir 13/363-365; al-Bayan 12/503; Rawdat at-Talibin 6/600).