There is no disagreement among the scholars that the first part to be cut from a thief is his right hand, from the wrist joint, which is the carpal bone (al-ku'). In the reading of Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, it is stated: "Faqta'u aymanahuma (Then cut their right hands)." If this is considered a recitation, then it is so; otherwise, it is an interpretation. It has been narrated from Abu Bakr al-Siddiq and Umar, may Allah be pleased with them both, that they said: "When a thief steals, cut his right hand from the wrist." There is no one among the Companions who disagrees with them. This is also because the ability to grasp with the right hand is stronger, so starting with it is more of a deterrent, and because it is the instrument of theft, so it is appropriate to punish him by removing its instrument. When he steals a second time, his left foot is cut off. This is the position of the majority, except for 'Ata, from whom it was narrated that the left hand is cut off, based on the Almighty's saying: "Then cut their hands (fakta'u aydiyahuma)." And because it is the instrument of theft and grasping, so punishing him by cutting it is more appropriate. It has been narrated from Rabi'ah and Dawud. This is an anomalous (shudhudh) view that contradicts the position of the collective jurists of the various lands from among the people of jurisprudence and reports, from the Companions, the Successors, and those who came after them, as well as the view of Abu Bakr and Umar, may Allah be pleased with them. Abu Hurayrah narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) that he said regarding the thief: "If he steals, cut off his hand, then if he steals again, cut off his foot." Furthermore, because in cases of hirabah (highway robbery/warfare) which warrants the cutting of two limbs, only his hand and foot are cut, and his two hands are not cut. We say: An offense has necessitated the cutting of two limbs, so they must be a foot and a hand, as in the case of hirabah. Moreover, cutting off both hands causes the loss of the benefit of the species, leaving him with no hand to eat with, perform ablution, cleanse himself, or defend himself, rendering him like one who is destroyed; therefore, cutting the foot, which does not involve this corruption, is more appropriate. As for the verse, what is intended by it is the cutting of the hand of each one of them;