according to the majority of scholars. Ibn al-Mundhir said: All those we remember from among the scholars have reached a consensus that the amputation of a thief becomes mandatory when two free, Muslim, just witnesses testify to the theft, and they describe what necessitates amputation. Once amputation becomes mandatory by their testimony, it does not lapse due to their absence or their death, as previously discussed regarding testimony in cases of adultery. If they testify to the theft of property belonging to an absent person, and there is a present agent who demands it, the thief shall be amputated; otherwise, he shall not.

Section: If the two witnesses differ regarding the time, place, or the stolen item—for example, if one of them testifies that he stole on Thursday, and the other that he stole on Friday; or one of them testifies that he stole from this house, and the other that he stole from that house; or one of them says: "He stole an ox," and the other says: "He stole a cow"; or one says: "He stole an ox," and the other says: "He stole a donkey," he shall not be amputated, according to all of them. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr, and the Ahl al-Ra'y (the Rationalists). If one of them says: "He stole a white garment," and the other says: "a black one," or one of them says: "He stole a Harawi (Herat-made) garment," and the other says: "a Marwi (Merv-made) one," he shall not be amputated either. This is also the opinion of al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr, and Ibn al-Mundhir, because they did not agree on testifying to one and the same thing, making it similar to if they disagreed regarding masculinity and femininity. Abu al-Khattab said: He shall be amputated. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa and the Ahl al-Ra'y, because the disagreement does not pertain to the testimony itself; it is possible that one of them was convinced that it was Harawi, while the other that it was Marwi, or the garment may have had both black and white in it. Ibn al-Mundhir said: Color is closer to being apparent than masculinity and femininity. If their disagreement in what is hidden invalidates their testimony, then it is even more so in what is apparent. It is also possible that one of them thought the stolen item was male, and the other thought it was female, and this has necessitated the rejection of their testimony; therefore, it is the same in this case. The second [method of proof] is confession. It is stipulated that he confesses twice. This is narrated from Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). This is the opinion of Ibn Abi Layla, Abu Yusuf, Zufar, and Ibn Shubruma. Ata, al-Thawri, Abu Hanifa, al-Shafi'i, and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan said: He is amputated upon a single confession, because it is a right...