Islamic Fiqh > Penalties (hudud) > Sariqa: theft in fiqh > The thief's amputation: procedure
Contents
Updated on 24 September 2026 at 12:48 AM
This section is part of the full chapter: All sections of this chapter.
The people of knowledge have agreed by consensus that when a thief commits a theft, his right hand is cut off from the wrist. Allah the Most High says:
« The male thief and the female thief: cut off their hands. »
Surah al-Ma'ida, 38
What is meant is one of the two hands of each of them, namely the right one. As for the fact that it is the right hand, this rests on the reading of Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him): « Cut off their right hands », a well-known reading; it was therefore a well-known report that qualifies the unrestricted wording of the text. This belongs to the restriction of the unrestricted, not to the explanation of what is ambiguous, for the correct view is that there is no ambiguity in the verse. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had the right hand cut off, and so did the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them), and there is agreement on this.
As for the fact that it is cut off at the wrist (az-zand), which is the joint of the carpus, also called al-ku', this is because the practice has been handed down uninterruptedly: something of this kind does not require a chain of transmission specific to it, like the consecutively transmitted report (mutawatir). The stump is then cauterized, for if it were not cauterized it would lead to death. The cauterization consists in plunging the hand, after the amputation, into fat that has been boiled over fire, so that the bleeding stops. Nor is the amputation carried out during intense heat or intense cold; rather, the thief is imprisoned until conditions become moderate.
Abu Bakr al-Jassas (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the community has not disagreed that the hand cut off for a first theft is the right hand. We therefore know that what Allah the Most High intends by His words « their hands » (Surah al-Ma'ida, 38) is their right hands. The apparent meaning of the wording, gathering the hands of two persons in the plural, indicates that what is meant is one single hand of each of the two, like the word of the Most High:
« If you both repent to Allah, then your hearts have already inclined. »
Surah at-Tahrim, 4
Since each of them had one single heart, He attributed it to them in the plural; likewise, when He attributed the hands to the two of them in the plural, this indicated that what is meant is one of the two hands of each of them, namely the right one (Ahkam al-Quran 4/62).
The imam Abu Umar Ibn Abd al-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the scholars among the early generations and the later ones have disagreed about what is cut off from a thief whose right hand has already been cut off for a theft he committed, then who returned and stole again; this after their consensus that the right hand is the first to be cut off from him (al-Istidhkar 7/546).
The imam al-Baghawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the people of knowledge have agreed that when the thief steals for the first time, his right hand is cut off, then if he steals a second time, his left foot is cut off (Sharh as-Sunna 10/326).
The vizier Ibn Hubayra (may Allah have mercy on him) said: they reached consensus that a thief on whom amputation becomes due for his very first theft, while his limbs are sound, has his right hand cut off first, at the joint of the palm, and it is then cauterized. They reached consensus that if he returns and steals a second time and amputation becomes due, his left foot is cut off, at the ankle joint, and then cauterized. They reached consensus that whoever lacks the limb whose cutting off is required, such that no cut can be made on it, has the next limb cut off, except Abu Hanifa, who said: his right hand is cut off even if it is paralyzed; and except al-Shafi'i, who said: if he steals while his right hand is paralyzed and the people of experience declare: « once it is cut off and cauterized, its bleeding will stop », then it is cut off; but if they declare: « if it is cut off, its bleeding will not stop and it will lead to death », it is not cut off and the limb after it is cut off instead (al-Ifsah 2/283 and 284).
The imam Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: there is no disagreement among the people of knowledge that the first thing cut off from the thief is his right hand, at the joint of the palm, which is al-ku'. There is the reading of Abdullah ibn Mas'ud: « Cut off their right hands »; this, if it is a transmitted reading, and otherwise it is an explanation. It is reported from Abu Bakr as-Siddiq and Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) that they said: « If the thief steals, cut off his right hand at al-ku' », with no Companion disagreeing with them. It is also because grasping is strongest with it, so beginning with it is a greater deterrent; and because it is the instrument of the theft, so it was fitting to punish him by destroying his instrument.
If he steals a second time, his left foot is cut off; this is the view of the majority, except Ata', from whom it has been reported that his left hand is cut off, because of the word of the Most High: « Cut off their hands » (Surah al-Ma'ida, 38), and because it is the instrument of theft and of grasping, so punishment by cutting it off was more appropriate. This has been reported from Rabi'ah and Dawud. It is an anomalous view (shudhudh) that contradicts the position of the body of jurists of the great cities, people of jurisprudence and tradition among the Companions, the Successors and those after them, and it is the view of Abu Bakr and Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both). Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said concerning the thief:
« If he steals, cut off his hand; then if he steals again, cut off his foot. »authentic hadith: reported by al-Bayhaqi in Ma'rifat as-Sunan wa-l-Athar 17187
It is also because in brigandage (hiraba), which makes the cutting off of two limbs due, only his hand and his foot are cut off, not his two hands. We say therefore: an offence that makes the cutting off of two limbs due concerns a foot and a hand, like brigandage. And because cutting off his two hands destroys the benefit proper to hands: he would have no hand left to eat with, to perform ablution, to clean himself or to defend himself, and he would become like a dead man; cutting off the foot, which does not entail this harm, was therefore more appropriate. As for the verse, what is meant by it is the cutting off of the hand of each of the two: the proof is that the two hands are not cut off the first time, and there is the reading of Abdullah: « Cut off their right hands ». It is only mentioned in the plural because the dual, when placed in construct with a dual, is expressed in the plural, like the word of the Most High: « your hearts have inclined » (Surah at-Tahrim, 4).
Once this is established, his left foot is cut off, because of the word of Allah the Most High:
« or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides. »
Surah al-Ma'ida, 33
And because cutting off the left foot is gentler for him: he can walk by means of a piece of wood, whereas if his right foot were cut off he could not walk at all. The foot is cut off at the ankle joint according to the view of most of the people of knowledge, and this is what Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) applied. Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) « used to cut off at half of the foot, at the place where the sandal strap is tied, leaving the heel to walk on »; it is also the view of Abu Thawr. Our argument is that it is one of the two limbs cut off in cases of theft, so it is cut off at the joint, like the hand. Once it is cut off, it is cauterized: the oil is brought to the boil, and when the limb is cut off it is plunged into the oil, so that the mouths of the veins are ruined and the blood does not flow out until he dies.
It is reported that a thief who had stolen a shamla (a type of garment) was brought to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and he said:
« Cut off and cauterize. »a hadith whose soundness has been questioned, as Ibn al-Mundhir said
Among those who recommended this cauterization are al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr and others among the people of knowledge. The oil comes from the public treasury (bayt al-mal), because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) ordered the one who cuts to do it, and this implies that it comes from the public treasury. If it is not cauterized, the judge has mentioned that he incurs nothing, for what is required of him is the cutting off, not the treatment of the condemned. It is recommended for the person whose hand was cut off to cauterize his stump himself; if he does not do it, he commits no sin, for it is like abandoning treatment during illness, and this is the school of al-Shafi'i.
The thief is cut off in the gentlest way possible: he is seated and held so that he does not move and injure himself; his hand is bound with a rope and pulled until the joint of the palm becomes distinct from the joint of the forearm; then a sharp knife is placed between the two and it is struck upon with force so as to cut in a single pass, or the knife is placed on the joint and drawn in one single stroke. If a gentler way of cutting than this is known, it is used.
It is recommended to hang the hand around his neck, because of what Fadala ibn Ubayd (may Allah be pleased with him) reported:
« A thief whose hand had been cut off was brought to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), then he ordered that it be hung around his neck. »reported by Abu Dawud and Ibn Majah
Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) did it as well, and it contains deterrence and warning.
The cutting off does not take place in intense heat or intense cold, because the season may help to kill him, the purpose being deterrence, not killing. It does not take place on a pregnant woman during her pregnancy, nor after she gives birth until her postnatal bleeding has ended, lest it lead to her death and the death of her child; nor on a sick person during his illness, lest it bring about his death (al-Mughni 9/106 and 107).
The imam al-Kasani (may Allah have mercy on him) said: it is recommended for the imam to prompt the confessor to retract... just as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) prompted the male thief and the female thief by saying:
« I do not think he stole. » or: « Did you steal? Say: no. »weak hadith: reported by Abu Dawud 4380, an-Nasa'i 4877 and Ahmad 22561
If the confession were not open to retraction, the prompting would have no meaning and no benefit. His prompting, on him be the most excellent greeting and peace, was therefore a stratagem to avert the punishment, for he commanded us to do it with his words: « Avert the fixed punishments by means of doubts », and: « Avert the fixed punishments as much as you can » (Bada'i as-Sana'i' 7/233).
The jurists have agreed that theft is established by testimony (bayyina), namely the deposition of two Muslim, free, upright men, whether the thief is a Muslim or a dhimmi. The testimony of women is not accepted for it, nor that of the depraved.
The imam Ibn al-Mundhir (may Allah have mercy on him) said: they reached consensus that the hand of the thief is cut off when two upright, Muslim, free witnesses testify against him of the theft, describe what makes the amputation due, then reaffirm their deposition, and that he is then cut off (al-Ijma 621).
The imam Ibn Rushd (may Allah have mercy on him) said: they agreed that theft is established by two upright witnesses (Bidayat al-Mujtahid 2/340).
The imam Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: it is required that the two witnesses describe the theft, the guarded place, the kind of the required threshold (nisab) and its amount, so that disagreement about it disappears. They say: « We testify that this man stole such-and-such, worth such-and-such, from a guarded place », and they describe the guarded place. If the victim is absent and his representative arrives and claims the theft, the two witnesses need to specify the lineage of the owner, saying: « from the guarded place of so-and-so, son of so-and-so, son of so-and-so », so that he is distinguished from anyone else. When these conditions are met, the amputation becomes due according to the view of the majority. Ibn al-Mundhir said: everyone whose transmission we preserve among the people of knowledge agreed that the amputation of the thief is due when two free, Muslim witnesses testify to the theft and describe what makes the amputation due. When the amputation becomes due through their testimony, it is not dropped by their absence or their death, as has been set out for testimony in cases of adultery. And if they testify to the theft of property belonging to an absent person: if he has a representative present who claims it, the thief is cut off; otherwise, no.
If the two witnesses disagree about the time, the place or the stolen item: one testifying that he stole on Thursday and the other that he stole on Friday; or one testifying that he stole from this house and the other that he stole from this house; or one saying « he stole an ox » and the other « he stole a cow », or one saying « he stole an ox » and the other « he stole a donkey »: he is not cut off, according to the view of them all, and this is the view of al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr and the partisans of personal opinion. And if one says « he stole a white garment » and the other « a black one », or one says « he stole a Herat fabric » and the other « a Marv fabric », he is not cut off either, and this is the view of al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr and Ibn al-Mundhir, because the two did not agree on any single element of the testimony, so it resembles the case where they disagree about gender. Abu al-Khattab said: he is cut off, and this is the view of Abu Hanifa and the partisans of personal opinion, because the disagreement does not go back to the testimony itself: it may be that one of them formed the view that it was Herat cloth and the other Marv cloth, or that the garment contained black and white. Ibn al-Mundhir said: colour is more apparent than masculinity and femininity; if their disagreement about what is hidden invalidates their testimony, then a fortiori about what is apparent. It may also be that one supposed the victim to be male and the other female: this entails the rejection of their testimony, and the same applies here (al-Mughni 9/118 and 119, and the rest of the sources cited above).
The jurists have disagreed about the case where a person claims against another the theft of property, the accused refuses to swear, the oath is returned to the claimant and he swears: is the one who refused to swear cut off in this situation, or not? The majority of the jurists, the Hanafis, the Malikis, the Shafi'is according to the view opposite the more correct one (and it has been said that it is the position of the school) and the Hanbalis, hold that his hand is not cut off, because amputation for theft is a right of Allah the Most High; the property is nevertheless established against him. Likewise, if a man and two women testify against him, his hand is not cut off and the property is established against him (al-Hidaya 3/158; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq 4/299; al-Bahr ar-Ra'iq 7/208; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin on ad-Durr al-Mukhtar 5/551 and 552; at-Taj wa-l-Iklil 5/360; ash-Sharh al-Kabir with Hashiyat ad-Dasuqi 6/356; Tahbir al-Mukhtasar 5/387; Rawdat at-Talibin 6/581; Mughni al-Muhtaj 5/486; al-Mughni 9/118; Kashshaf al-Qina' 6/183).
The Shafi'is, according to the more correct view, hold that theft is established by the returned oath of the claimant: if he claims against someone the theft of property reaching the threshold, the accused refuses the oath, it is returned to the claimant and he swears, the amputation becomes due. The returned oath is indeed like a confession or a testimony, and amputation is due through each of them, so it resembles retaliation (qisas). But if the accused swears and does not refuse, nothing is due on him (Rawdat at-Talibin 6/581; Mughni al-Muhtaj 5/486).
The jurists have disagreed about the case where theft is established by the thief's confession or by the testimony of the witnesses: is the punishment carried out on him at once, or is the claim of the victim or his representative indispensable? The majority of the jurists, the Hanafis, the Shafi'is according to the position of the school and the Hanbalis according to the position of the school, hold that the claim of the victim for his property is required. Property is indeed made lawful through donation and permission: it is possible that its owner granted it to him, or permitted him to enter his guarded place, or dedicated it as a charitable endowment to the Muslims or to a group that includes the thief, or anything else of what cancels the amputation. The claim was therefore required in order to exclude this possibility and remove the doubt. It is also because amputation is the widest of the fixed punishments in terms of being dropped: do you not see that if he steals his son's property he is not cut off, whereas if he fornicated with his slave-girl the punishment would be applied to him? And because amputation was instituted to protect the property of human beings: it is attached to it, so it is only exacted in the presence of one who claims it, whereas fornication is a purely divine right of Allah the Most High, and does not require any claim. If he confesses to the theft of property whose owner is absent, he is imprisoned until the absent person returns, because it is possible that he had granted it to him; likewise, if the testimony is established, he is imprisoned until its owner comes (Bada'i as-Sana'i' 7/81; al-Hidaya 2/127; Sharh Fath al-Qadir 5/400; al-Jawhara an-Nayyira 5/410; al-Ifsah 2/281; al-Bayan 12/485 and 486; Rawdat at-Talibin 6/582; Mughni al-Muhtaj 5/487; al-Mughni 9/122; al-Mubdi' 9/139; al-Insaf 10/284 and 285; Kashshaf al-Qina' 6/185; Manar as-Sabil 3/342).
The Malikis, the Shafi'is according to one view and the Hanbalis according to one transmission hold that the claim of the victim is not required: if he confesses to the theft and stands by it, or the testimony establishes his theft, the punishment is carried out on him even if the victim does not claim it, because of the generality of the word of Allah the Most High:
« The male thief and the female thief: cut off their hands. »
Surah al-Ma'ida, 38
And because it is established that he is a thief through the confession and the testimony: he must therefore be cut off in consideration of this, even if the victim, present, confirms the testimony and says: « I do not ask for the amputation. » It is also because it is a punishment belonging to Allah the Most High: it must be carried out on the one against whom it is established, without waiting for the presence of the one to whom the right is attached. Its root is the punishment for fornication: it is carried out even if the person with whom it was committed is not present (al-Ishraf ala Nukat Masa'il al-Khilaf 4/490, no. 1783; al-Ifsah 2/281; al-Bayan 12/485 and 486; Rawdat at-Talibin 6/582; Mughni al-Muhtaj 5/487; al-Mubdi' 9/139; al-Insaf 10/284 and 285).