retaliation for injuries short of life. If it entails retaliation, then its enforcement becomes mandatory—for example, if they sever a limb at a joint. Thus, if they cut off a hand at the joint, retaliation is due; that is, it is established. In this case, its enforcement becomes mandatory. Therefore, if the victim pardons the offender, his pardon is not valid. They cite as evidence an analogy with killing: since execution for killing must be carried out, retaliation for injuries short of life must likewise be carried out.
What the author has adopted here, however, is contrary to the established position of the school. The school holds that if they commit an offence against a limb that entails retaliation, its enforcement is not mandatory; rather, the choice belongs to the victim, due to the general meaning of Allah’s saying:
“But whoever gives up his right as charity, it is an expiation for him.” [al-Ma'idah 5:45]
Thus, He has granted a person the option of relinquishing retaliation for such an offence. They further argue that the text specifically states, “that they be put to death,” whereas killing is absent in this case. The original ruling, therefore, remains that the victim has a choice: between retaliation, pardoning without compensation, and accepting blood money.
“If each one of them takes from the property an amount for which a thief’s hand would be cut off, and they do not kill anyone, then each one’s right hand and left foot are to be cut off at the same time and cauterized; then he is to be released. But if they neither kill anyone nor take property reaching the theft threshold, they are to be banished, by being driven away so that they are not allowed to settle in any town, ...”
His statement, “If each one of them takes from the property an amount for which a thief’s hand would be cut off, and they do not kill anyone, then each one’s right hand and left foot are to be cut off”: if each of them takes an amount of property for which a thief’s hand would be cut off, then—according to the school—this is a quarter of a dinar, three dirhams, or merchandise worth the equivalent of either of them. The second view is that the threshold is a quarter of a dinar, based on the hadith of Aishah, may Allah be pleased with her: “The hand is not cut off except for a quarter of a dinar or more.” (1) This is the correct view.
Thus, if they take property that reaches the threshold for amputation in theft, their hands are cut off for taking the property, and their feet for highway robbery, because they take with their hands and travel on their feet.