The free man and the slave are equal in its count, like all other hadd punishments.

1591 - Issue: He said: "And he does not retract his confession until he is amputated."

This is the opinion of the majority of jurists. Ibn Abi Layla and Dawud said: His retraction is not accepted; because if he were to confess to a human being regarding qiṣāṣ (retaliation) or a right, his retraction would not be accepted. Our argument is the statement of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) to the thief: "I do not think you have stolen." He offered this to him so that he might retract. Also, it is a hadd of Allah Almighty that is proven by confession, so his retraction from it is accepted, like the hadd of adultery. Furthermore, the hadd punishments are to be averted by doubts, and his retraction from it is a doubt, due to the possibility that he may have lied against himself in his confession. It is also one of the two proofs for amputation, so it is nullified by retracting from it, like witness testimony. Moreover, the proof for amputation ceased before its execution, so it falls, just as it would if the witnesses retracted their testimony. It differs from the right of a human being, as that is based on avarice and restriction, and even if witnesses retract their testimony after the judgment, it is not nullified by their retraction, and it does not prevent its execution. Once this is established, then if he retracts before the amputation, [the amputation falls, but] the liability for the stolen item does not fall; because it is a human right. Even if he confessed only once, the liability for the stolen item would be binding upon him, without the amputation. If his retraction is after part of the joint has been cut, he should not finish it if his recovery is hoped for; because he has cut only a little. If he has cut the greater part, the one who is being amputated has the choice: if he wishes, he may leave it, and if he wishes, he may complete the amputation, to relieve himself from the dangling of his hand. It is not binding upon the one performing the amputation to complete it, because his cutting is for medical treatment, not for a hadd.

Section: Ahmad said: There is no harm in prompting the thief to retract his confession. This is the opinion of the generality of jurists. It is narrated from Umar that a man was brought to him, and he asked him: "Did you steal? Say: No." He said: "No." So he released him. A similar meaning is narrated from Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, Abu Hurayra, Ibn Mas'ud, and Abu al-Darda'.