The author, may Allah have mercy on him, stipulates for amputation that they must take from the property an amount for which a thief’s hand would be cut off. The apparent meaning of his words is that, if they take less than this, no amputation is prescribed; rather, they are treated as those who have taken nothing. This is one of the two views on the issue.

The second view is that if they take property—even less than the amount for which a thief’s hand would be cut off—the cutting off of their hands and feet from opposite sides becomes mandatory. This is because it is not theft, but a more serious offence; and what is more serious cannot be analogized to what is less serious. Moreover, the locus of punishment in theft is the hand, whereas here the punishment concerns both the hand and the foot. A punishment that is more severe cannot be analogized to one that is lighter. This is the position of Malik, and it is the correct view. The general purport of the report narrated from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both, also indicates this. (1)

Analogizing it to theft is unsound, because it differs from theft both in the offence itself and in the punishment. When it differs in both the offence and the punishment, the more severe case cannot be analogized to the lighter one.

The hand is cut off at the wrist joint, and the foot at the ankle joint. The heel is left intact and is not cut off, for if we were to cut off the heel, we would cause him excessive harm: the foot would be shortened, and walking would be impaired.

The heel is the back of the foot, beneath the ankle.

The right hand is cut off, since the right hand is ordinarily used for taking and giving.