There is no disagreement among the scholars regarding the obligation to return the stolen item to its owner if it remains intact. However, if it has been destroyed, the thief must return its value, or its equivalent if it is a fungible item, whether he was amputated or not, and whether he is wealthy or destitute. This is the opinion of al-Hasan, al-Nakha'i, Hammad, al-Batti, al-Layth, al-Shafi'i, Ishaq, and Abu Thawr. Al-Thawri and Abu Hanifa said: Liability (ghurm) and amputation cannot be combined; if he pays the value before the amputation, the amputation is waived, and if he is amputated before paying the value, the liability is waived. 'Ata', Ibn Sirin, al-Sha'bi, and Makhul said: There is no liability upon the thief if he is amputated; Malik agreed with them regarding the destitute person and agreed with us regarding the wealthy person. Abu Hanifa said, regarding a man who stole several times and was then amputated: He is liable for everything except for the last theft. Abu Yusuf said: He is not liable for anything, because he was amputated for the entirety of it, so he is not liable for any part of it, just like the last theft. He argued based on what was narrated from 'Abd al-Rahman b. 'Awf, from the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), that he said: "If the hadd (prescribed penalty) is carried out on the thief, there is no liability upon him" (3). Furthermore, requiring payment of the value implies transferring ownership, and ownership prevents amputation, so they cannot be combined. Our evidence is that it is an item whose restitution is obligatory if it remains intact, so its restitution is obligatory if it is destroyed, just as if he were not amputated. Furthermore, amputation and liability are two rights that are due to two different claimants, so it is permissible to combine them, like the penalty (jaza') and the value in the case of hunted game in the sanctuary (Haram) that is privately owned. Their hadith is narrated by Sa'd b. Ibrahim, from Mansur, and Sa'd b. Ibrahim is unknown, as stated by Ibn al-Mundhir. Ibn 'Abd al-Barr said: The hadith is not strong. It is possible that it meant there is no fee for the one carrying out the amputation. What they have mentioned is based upon their foundational principles, and we do not concede them to them.

Section: If he performs an action on the item that causes a decrease in its value, such as cutting a garment or the like, it is obligatory to return it and compensate for the decrease, and amputation is also obligatory. Abu Hanifa said: If it is a decrease that does not cut off the right of the person whose property was usurped when done by a usurper, he returns the item and there is no liability upon him. But if it does cut off the right of the owner (4), such as cutting or sewing the garment, then there is no liability upon him, and the right of the stolen-from person in the item is extinguished.