If the usurper turns into a highway robber, brandishing weapons against the Muslims and frightening travelers, his case is treated as that of a brigand (muhārib), the details of which will appear under the ḥadd for brigandage.
As for the thief upon whom the ḥadd of theft becomes mandatory, the jurists agree that he must be legally accountable (mukallaf), whether free or enslaved, male or female, Muslim or under covenant (dhimmī). The sole early dispute concerns the runaway slave who steals; cutting his hand was reportedly favored by Ibn ʿAbbās, ʿUthmān, Marwān, and ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and after that first generation no contrary view was recorded.
Hence, whoever accepts that consensus can be concluded after an initial disagreement views the matter as definitive. Whoever denies that possibility adheres to the general command to amputate. The only argument of those who exempt the runaway slave is an analogy: since the ḥudūd are halved for slaves, the entire punishment should lapse—an analogy of little weight.
Regarding the property stolen, several disputed conditions apply, the most famous being the requirement of a minimum amount (niṣāb). The majority stipulate it, except for the report from al-Hasan al-Baṣrī stating, “Amputation applies whether the amount stolen is small or great,” citing the general sense of the verse,
“As for the thief, whether male or female, cut off their hands…” (Q 5:38).
They also invoke the ḥadīth of Abū Hurayrah—recorded by al-Bukhārī and Muslim—in which the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, 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.”
This view was likewise adopted by the Khārijites and a group of speculative theologians.
Those who require a niṣāb—the majority—differ greatly over its exact amount. The principal, evidence-based disagreement comes down to two positions: one held by the jurists of the Ḥijāz—Mālik, al-Shāfiʿī, and others—and one held by the jurists of Iraq.
The Ḥijāzīs stipulate amputation for three dirhams of silver or one-quarter dīnār of gold. They then differ on how to value other stolen items besides gold and silver. According to the well-known view of Mālik, such items are valued in dirhams rather than by the quarter-dīnār—that is, when three dirhams and a quarter dīnār diverge because of exchange-rate fluctuations, as when a quarter dīnār at some time equals two and a half dirhams. Al-Shāfiʿī, by contrast, maintains that the basic standard of valuation is the quarter dīnār; it is likewise the standard for dirhams, so in his view the hand is not cut off for three dirhams unless they equal a quarter dīnār.
For Mālik, dīnārs and dirhams are each assessed independently. And some have transmitted