If one of them is present and makes a demand, but the other is not present, he is not to be amputated; because that which the demand has been made for does not necessitate amputation on its own. If he confesses to stealing something from a man, and the man says, "I have missed it from my wealth," then he should be amputated, due to what was narrated from Abd al-Rahman ibn Tha'labah al-Ansari, from his father, that 'Amr ibn Samurah ibn Habib ibn 'Abd Shams came to the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and said: "O Messenger of Allah, I have stolen a camel belonging to the sons of so-and-so, so purify me." The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) sent someone to them, and they said: "We have missed a camel of ours." The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) ordered [the punishment] for him, and his hand was cut off. Tha'labah said: "I was looking at him when his hand fell, and he was saying: 'Praise be to Allah who has purified me through you; you wanted to bring my body into the Fire.'" Reported by Ibn Majah (4).

Section: Whoever has his theft proven by just witnesses, but then denies it, his denial is not to be paid attention to. If he says, "Make them swear to me that I stole from him," he is not to be made to swear; because the theft has already been proven by evidence, and making him swear regarding it is an insult to the testimony. If he says, "What I took is my own property; I had it with him as a trust, or a pledge, or I bought it from him, or he gifted it to me, or he permitted me to take it, or he usurped it from me, or from my father, or some of it is mine," then the statement is the statement of the one from whom the item was stolen, along with his oath; because possession (yad) has been proven for him. If he swears, the claim of the thief is dropped, and there is no amputation for him, because what he said is possible, and this is why we made the one from whom the item was stolen swear. If he refuses to swear, we pass judgment against him based on his refusal. This is one of the narrations (5), and it is the position explicitly stated by al-Shafi'i. There is another narration from Ahmad that he is to be amputated, because the dropping of the amputation based on his claim leads to the result that the amputation of a thief might never become mandatory, thus the benefit of deterrence is lost. There is a third narration from him that if he is known for theft, he is amputated because his lying is known; otherwise, the amputation is dropped from him. The first is more appropriate, because prescribed punishments (hudad) are warded off by doubts. Its leading to the dropping of the amputation does not prevent it from being considered, just as the Sacred Law has considered conditions in the testimony for adultery with which a hadd punishment can never be established by evidence, even though it does not necessarily lead to that, for the majority of thieves do not know this and are not guided to it; rather, the knowledge of this is specific to the jurists who, for the most part, do not steal. If the one from whom the item was stolen does not swear, judgment is passed against him, and the hadd is dropped, in one single view.