And this is the position of Abu Hanifah and al-Shafi'i. Abu Bakr said: He is to be amputated, and it does not require a claim or a demand [from the owner]. This is the view of Malik, Abu Thawr, and Ibn al-Mundhir, due to the generality of the verse and because the requirement for amputation has been established, thus it is mandatory without a demand, similar to the prescribed punishment (hadd) for adultery. Our position is that wealth is made permissible through donation or permission, so it is possible that its owner permitted him to take it (1), or dedicated it to the Muslims, or to the group of thieves among them, or gave him permission to enter his protected area (hirz). Therefore, a demand is considered in order to remove this ambiguity. Based on this, adultery is excluded, as it is not made permissible through permission. Furthermore, amputation is more prone to being dropped [than other hadd punishments]; do you not see that if he steals his father's wealth (2), he is not amputated, yet if he commits adultery with his slave-girl, he is punished? Also, because amputation was legislated to protect the property of a human being, he has an attachment to it, so it is not to be executed without the presence of one demanding it, whereas adultery is purely a right of Allah Almighty, so it does not require a demand for it. Once this is established, the agent of the owner stands in his place in making the demand. The Qadi said: If he confesses to stealing the property of an absent person, he is to be imprisoned until the absent person arrives, because it is possible that he may have permitted it. If he confesses to an absolute right of an absent person, he is not to be imprisoned, because there is no right against him for anyone other than the absent person, and it has not been ordered to imprison him, so he is not imprisoned. In our issue, the right of Allah Almighty and the right of the human being are attached, so he is imprisoned for the right of Allah Almighty that is upon him. If the object is in his possession, the judge takes it and preserves it for the absent person. If there is nothing in his possession, then when the absent person arrives, he is the claimant regarding it.

Section: If he confesses to stealing from a man, and the owner says: "You did not steal from me, but rather you usurped it from me," or "I had a trust with you and you denied it to me," he is not to be amputated, because his confession did not agree with the claim of the claimant. This is the opinion of Abu Thawr and the People of Opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y). If he confesses that he stole a quorum (nisab) from two men, and one of them verifies him while the other does not, or the other says: "Rather, you usurped it from me or denied it to me," he is not to be amputated. The People of Opinion also hold this view. Abu Thawr said: If the other says: "You usurped it from me or denied it to me," he is amputated. Our position is that he did not agree (3) upon the theft of a quorum, so he is not amputated, like the case before it. If they both agree with him, he is to be amputated.