5 – He also said, “There is no harm in prompting him to deny the charge so that he withdraws his confession.”
Al-Muwaffaq remarked, “This is the view of the vast majority of jurists.”
They are unanimously agreed that once the case has reached the ruler, intercession on the thief’s behalf is no longer permissible, as noted earlier.

6 – Prompting him to deny the theft, his retraction, and the acceptance of that retraction remain valid so long as his guilt has not been established by the testimony of two upright witnesses.
Al-Buhūtī states in Sharḥ al-Iqniʿ: “This differs from the situation in which the amputation is established by evidence—namely, witnesses who testify to the act itself—for in that case his denial is not accepted; rather, his hand is cut.”

7 – When the ḥadd for theft is carried out, the thief should be reminded to repent and seek forgiveness, so that God combines the erasure of his sin through both the prescribed punishment and sincere repentance of heart and tongue. It is also commendable to pray for his repentance, assisting him against his own self and against Satan.

8 – The site of the amputation should be cauterized with a substance that stops the bleeding; if the hemorrhage were to continue he could die, and the purpose is not to destroy him but to carry out the ḥadd and purify him.

Scholarly disagreement:
The scholars have differed over whether one of the conditions for amputation is that the owner must first demand the return of his property from the thief.
• The three Imams—Abū Ḥanīfah, al-Shāfiʿī, and Aḥmad—hold that such a demand is required, a view championed by Ibn Qudāmah in al-Mughnī.
• Imām Mālik maintains that it is not required; this is also one narration from Aḥmad and was preferred by Shaykh Taqī al-Dīn, for the verse is general: “As for the male thief and the female thief, cut off their hands as a recompense for what they have earned, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise” (al-Māʾidah 5:38).

Ibn al-Qayyim said: “Whenever the stolen property is actually found in the possession of the accused, the caliphs and scholars have consistently ruled that the hand be cut. This indication is stronger than either testimony or confession, for both of those are reports that may be true or false, whereas the presence of the property with the thief is a clear, unequivocal proof that admits of no doubt.”