nor defend himself, nor eat, nor strike; and this harm is present when cutting it the third time, so it is necessary to prevent its cutting, just as it was prevented in the second time. As for the hadith of Jabir, it concerns a person who deserved to be killed, based on the evidence that the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) ordered it the first time, and every time, and he did that in the fifth. [It was narrated by al-Nasa'i, who said: It is a munkar (rejected) hadith] (9). As for the other hadith, and the action of Abu Bakr and Umar, they have been contradicted by the opinion of Ali. It was narrated (10) from Umar that he (11) returned to the opinion of Ali; Sa'id narrated that Abu al-Ahwas told us, from Simak ibn Harb, from Abd al-Rahman ibn Abid, who said: Umar was brought a man whose hand and foot had been cut, and he had stolen again, so Umar ordered that his foot be cut. Ali said: God Almighty only said: {The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive in the land for corruption} (12) [up to the end of the] verse. You have already cut this man's hand and foot, so it is not appropriate that you cut his [remaining] foot, leaving him with no limb upon which to walk; either you discipline him (ta'zir), [or you] (13) remand him to prison. So he remanded him to prison (14).

Section: If someone whose left hand is already cut off, or paralyzed, or whose fingers have been cut off, steals, or if both his hands were sound but his left one was cut off or paralyzed before his right one was cut, his right hand shall not be cut off according to the first narration, but it shall be cut off according to the second. If someone intentionally cuts his left hand, there is qisas (retaliation) upon him because he cut a protected limb. If he cuts it unintentionally, he is liable for its blood money (diya). The right hand of the thief is not to be cut. Abu Thawr and the Ashab al-Ra'y (the Rationalists) held this view. There are two opinions regarding cutting the foot of the thief; the more correct of the two is that it is not obligatory, because it did not become mandatory through the theft, and the dropping of the cutting of his right hand does not necessitate cutting his foot, just as in the case where the one who had his right hand cut was the one [being judged]. The second [opinion] is that his foot shall be cut, because the cutting of his right hand became impossible, so his foot is cut, as if his left hand had been cut off at the time of the theft. And if his right hand was