- If, however, the stolen article has perished, the scholars differed over whether the thief must make restitution:
• Abū Ḥanīfah held that the thief does not owe compensation, acting on the above-mentioned hadith. Although the report seems to support this ruling, it is weak and runs counter to broader, more reliable texts.
• Mālik maintained that a solvent thief must reimburse the owner, but if the thief is insolvent, the amputation alone suffices and no financial payment is required.
• Al-Shāfiʿī and Aḥmad ruled that both rights apply in every case, whether the thief is wealthy or poor. The amputation fulfils the public right; if the thief is solvent the value is taken from his property, and if he is insolvent the amount remains a debt on his liability, like any other obligation for damages. They cite as proof Allah’s words, “Do not consume one another’s wealth wrongfully” (Q. 2:188); the Prophet’s saying, “The hand is liable for whatever it takes until it returns it”; and his statement, “The property of a Muslim is unlawful except with his willing consent.”
Theft therefore combines two rights—one that belongs to Allah Most High and another that belongs to a human being—so each right entails its corresponding consequence. Moreover, consensus affirms that when the stolen item is still found, it is taken back from the thief; by the same reasoning, if it is no longer found, its value remains a guaranteed liability, just like any other obligatory financial claim.