(a) that, after the qiṣāṣ has been carried out, the victim consents to having the severed limb reattached;
(b) that the victim has succeeded in preserving the severed limb so that it can in fact be reattached.

3- A limb severed under a ḥadd or qiṣāṣ may be reattached when the judgment itself, or its execution, proved to be erroneous. End of the resolution.

Scholarly disagreement

The jurists have differed over the amount that constitutes the niṣāb (minimum threshold) for which a thief’s hand is to be cut off.

The Ẓāhirīs maintain that the ruling applies to both small and large amounts alike, arguing from the Almighty’s words, “As for the male thief and the female thief—cut off their hands” (al-Māʾidah 5:38), a verse, they say, that is unrestricted with respect to the value stolen. They also cite the report recorded by al-Bukhārī from Abū Hurayrah in which the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “May Allah curse the thief: he steals an egg and his hand is cut off; he steals a rope and his hand is cut off.”

The majority of scholars, however, contend that amputation requires the attainment of a specific niṣāb, basing themselves on the authentic hadiths that lay down that threshold.

They answer the Ẓāhirī proofs by stating that the verse is absolute as to the type and amount of what is stolen, while the hadiths provide its specification. As for the hadith of the egg and the rope, its intent is to expose the thief’s folly, feeble intellect, baseness, and lowliness—that he risks losing his hand for trivial, insignificant items. This wording is a rhetorical device meant to deter and to vilify, depicting sinful deeds in a hateful and repulsive light.

The majority then disagreed among themselves regarding the precise amount that forms the niṣāb for amputation, producing many opinions; we shall cite the strongest of them:

Mālik, Aḥmad, and Isḥāq held that the niṣāb is one-quarter of a dinar, or