Those who transmit from him among the Baghdadis state that, when valuing non-monetary goods, one looks to the currency that predominates in the locality: if silver dirhams are the norm, the valuation is made in dirhams; if gold dinars prevail, the yardstick is a quarter-dinar.
I suspect that within the school there are scholars who maintain that a quarter-dinar should itself be reckoned at three dirhams. Abū Thawr, al-Awzāʿī, and Dāwūd adopted al-Shāfiʿī’s method of valuation, whereas Aḥmad embraced Mālik’s well-known view—namely, that the assessment is to be made in dirhams.
As for the jurists of Iraq, they hold that the niṣāb requiring amputation is ten dirhams, and nothing less. Some of them—such as Ibn Abī Laylā and Ibn Shubrumah—said the hand is not cut off for less than five dirhams; others put the figure at four, and ʿUthmān al-Battī set it at two.
The Hijaz jurists ground their position on the report narrated by Mālik from Nāfiʿ, from Ibn ʿUmar, that “the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—ordered the hand to be cut off over a shield worth three dirhams,” as well as on the ḥadīth of ʿĀʾishah, which Mālik recorded as mawqūf while al-Bukhārī and Muslim transmitted it as marfūʿ: “The hand is cut off for a quarter-dinar or more.”
The Iraqi jurists likewise cite the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿUmar but contend that the shield in question was valued at ten dirhams, a figure they support with several reports. Many Companions who agreed that a shield meets the threshold—among them Ibn ʿAbbās—nevertheless disagreed with Ibn ʿUmar about its price. Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq related, through Ayyūb ibn Mūsā and ʿAṭāʾ, that Ibn ʿAbbās said: “In the time of the Messenger of Allah—peace be upon him—the price of a shield was ten dirhams.”
They argue, therefore, that where such uncertainty exists regarding the shield’s value, the hand should not be amputated unless certainty is achieved. This is a reasonable contention—were it not for the ḥadīth of ʿĀʾishah, upon which al-Shāfiʿī relies, making the fundamental standard a quarter-dinar.
Mālik, for his part, reinforced the report of Ibn ʿUmar with the ḥadīth of ʿUthmān, who ordered amputation over a citron valued at three dirhams. Al-Shāfiʿī responds to ʿUthmān’s report by noting that, at that time, the exchange rate was twelve dirhams to the dinar.
Cutting off the hand for three dirhams better safeguards people’s property, whereas setting the threshold at ten dirhams leans toward leniency—overlooking small losses out of regard for the dignity of the limb. Reconciling the hadith of Ibn ʿUmar, the hadith of ʿĀʾishah, and the action of ʿUthmān is possible under al-Shāfiʿī’s approach and impossible under the others. If reconciliation is preferable to choosing one proof over another, then al-Shāfiʿī’s school is the strongest. This, then, is one of the conditions stipulated for carrying out the penalty of amputation.