His saying - glorified and exalted is He -: "And the male thief and the female thief, cut off their hands as a recompense for what they have earned, as a deterrent from Allah. And Allah is Exalted in Might, Wise."

The majority of the reciters read: "And the male thief and the female thief" with the nominative case; while 'Isa ibn 'Umar and Ibrahim ibn Abi 'Abla read: "And the male thief and the female thief" with the accusative case. Sibawayh - may Allah have mercy on him - said: The correct way in the speech of the Arabs is the accusative; as you say: "Zayd, strike him." However, the general public would not accept anything but the nominative - meaning the majority of the reciters. Sibawayh said: The nominative in this, and in His saying: "The female adulteress and the male adulterer" [An-Nur: 2], and in the saying of Allah: "And the two who commit it among you" [An-Nisa: 16], is based on the meaning: "In what He has made obligatory upon you."

And the letter 'fa' in His saying: "So cut off" indicates a connection that is not independent; because His saying: "In what He has made obligatory upon you, the thief" is a sentence whose rightful and apparent meaning is independence. However, the intended meaning is only in His saying: "So cut off"; so this 'fa' is what linked the second statement to the first, and made the first here not independent. Abu al-Abbas al-Mubarrid - which is the saying of a group from the Basri scholars - preferred that "And the male thief and the female thief" be in the nominative as a beginning; because the intention is not directed to one specifically; it is not like your saying: "Zayd, strike him"; rather it is like your saying: "Whoever steals, cut off his hand." Al-Zajjaj said: This is the preferred view.

Qadi Abu Muhammad - may Allah have mercy on him - said: Sibawayh placed the type of thief in the position of a specific person; and Abdullah ibn Mas'ud and Ibrahim al-Nakha'i read: "And the male thieves and the female thieves, cut off their hands"; and al-Khaffaf said: It was found in the Mushaf of Ubayy ibn Ka'b: "And the male thieves and the female thieves"; thus it was recorded with the 's' being pronounced with a heavy sound and the 'r' being pronounced with a light sound in both of them; this is how Abu Amr recorded them.

Qadi Abu Muhammad - may Allah have mercy on him - said: It seems that this is a misreading from the recorder; because the reading of the majority, when "the male thief" is written without an 'alif', matches this in writing.

And taking the property of others varies according to its circumstances; among it is usurpation; and its circumstance is the knowledge of the usurped person at the time of the usurpation; or the knowledge of an observer other than him; and among it is betrayal; and its circumstance is that the betrayer has approached the wealth with some action; and among it is theft; and its circumstances are that wealth is taken without the knowledge of its owner; and in secrecy from all people; as the thief sees; and this is what must have the hand cut off; alone; among the various ways of taking wealth; due to the wickedness of this inclination; and the lack of excuse in it; and Allah, the Exalted, has protected humanity through the tongue of His Prophet that the cutting off does not occur except with circumstances: among them is removal from a place of safety; and among them is the amount stolen; differing among the scholars in this; and among them is that the thief knows the prohibition of theft; and that the theft occurs in what is permissible for him to own; so the term "the male thief" in the verse is general, while its meaning is specific.

As for the amount that is stolen, a group said: There is no cutting except for a quarter of a dinar and above. This was said by Umar ibn al-Khattab, Uthman ibn Affan, Ali, Aisha, Umar ibn Abdul Aziz, al-Awza'i, al-Layth, al-Shafi'i, and Abu Thawr - may Allah be pleased with them. There is a hadith from the Prophet - blessings and peace be upon him - that he said: "The cutting is for a quarter of a dinar and above." Malik - may Allah have mercy on him - said: The hand is cut for a quarter of a dinar or for three dirhams. If he steals two dirhams - which is a quarter of a dinar - due to the depreciation of currency, he is not cut. Likewise, for goods, there is no cutting in them unless they reach three dirhams, whether the currency is low or high. Ishaq ibn Rahawaih and Ahmad ibn Hanbal said: If the value of the item is a quarter of a dinar or three dirhams, cutting applies to both, whether the currency is low or high. There is a fourth opinion on cutting, which is that there is no cutting except for five dirhams or its value. This was narrated from Umar, and it was said by Sulayman ibn Yasar, Ibn Abi Layla, and Ibn Shubrumah. From this is the saying of Anas ibn Malik: "Abu Bakr cut for a shield whose value was five dirhams."

The judge Abu Muhammad - may Allah have mercy on him - said: There is no evidence in this that five is a limit.

Abu Hanifa and his companions, and Ata said: There is no cutting for less than ten dirhams. Abu Huraira and Abu Sa'id al-Khudri said: The hand is not cut for less than four dirhams. Uthman al-Batti said: The hand is cut for one dirham and above. Al-Tabari reported that Abdullah ibn al-Zubair cut for one dirham. It was narrated from al-Hasan ibn Abi al-Hasan that he said: The hand is cut for anything that has value, little or much, based on the apparent meaning of the verse. Al-Tabari also reported something similar from Ibn Abbas - may Allah be pleased with them both - and this is the saying of the people of the apparent meaning and the Khawarij. It was also narrated from al-Hasan that he said: We discussed cutting and how much it should be during the time of Ziyad, and we agreed on two dirhams. Most scholars agree that repentance does not remove the cutting from the thief. It was narrated from al-Shafi'i that if he repents before he is apprehended and the hand of the law reaches him, then the cutting is removed from him, based on the analogy of the highway robber. The majority of people agree that cutting only occurs for one who takes from a place of security. Al-Hasan ibn Abi al-Hasan said: If he gathers clothes in the house, he is cut, even if he does not take them out.

And His saying, exalted is He: "So cut off their hands"; He gathered the hands in that each thief has one right hand; and it is the one that is subject to cutting in theft first; so it came for the thieves with hands; and for the female thieves with hands; as if He said: "Cut off the right hands of the two types"; the duality in the pronoun is only for the two types; Al-Zajjaj said about some grammarians: The duality of what is in a person is made as one in gathering; like His saying: "Your hearts have deviated" [At-Tahrim: 4]; because most of his limbs in it are two; so what is in it that is one is carried on that example; Abu Ishaq said: The reality of this matter is that what is in a thing is one is not dualized; and it is expressed in the form of the plural; because the addition clarifies it; so if you say: "I have satisfied their bellies"; it is known that for the two there are two bellies.

The judge Abu Muhammad - may Allah have mercy on him - said: It is as if they disliked the gathering of two dualities in one word.

And the scholars differed in the order of cutting; so the school of Malik - may Allah have mercy on him - and the majority of people is that the right hand of the thief is to be cut off first; then - if he returns - his left leg is cut off; then - if he returns - his left hand is cut off; then - if he returns - his right leg is cut off; then if he steals, he is punished; and Ali ibn Abi Talib - may Allah be pleased with him - and Al-Zuhri and Hamad ibn Abi Sulayman and Ahmad ibn Hanbal said: His right hand is to be cut off; then - if he steals - his left leg is cut off; then - if he steals - he is punished and imprisoned; and it has been narrated from Ata ibn Abi Rabah: The only hand to be cut off in theft is the right hand only; then - if he steals - he is punished and imprisoned.

The judge Abu Muhammad - may Allah have mercy on him - said: And this is an adherence to the apparent meaning of the verse; and the saying is odd; it must - according to the apparent meaning of the verse - that the hand is cut off then the hand; and the school of the majority of jurists is that the cutting of the hand is from the wrist; and in the leg from the joint; and it has been narrated from Ali ibn Abi Talib - may Allah be pleased with him - that the cutting of the hand is from the fingers; and in the leg from the middle of the foot.

And His saying, exalted is He: "A recompense for what they earned"; He made it accusative for the source; and Al-Zajjaj said: It is a noun for its sake; and likewise: "A punishment from Allah"; and the punishment is: the torment; and the punishment is: the chain; and the rest of the meaning of the verse is clear; and in it is some grammatical explanation.