Mālik, al-Shāfiʿī, and Abū Ḥanīfah—after concurring that the left foot is to be severed after the right hand—disagreed over whether the sequence of amputations stops should the thief steal a third time.

Sufyān al-Thawrī and Abū Ḥanīfah held that the cutting halts at the foot; for a third theft the culprit is liable only for financial compensation.
Mālik and al-Shāfiʿī maintained that if he steals a third time his left hand is cut; should he steal a fourth time, his right foot is severed. Both of these opinions—those of Mālik and Abū Ḥanīfah—are reported from ʿUmar and Abū Bakr (may Allah be pleased with them).

Those who limit the ḥadd to cutting the hand base themselves on the words of the Exalted:

“As for the thief, male or female, cut off their hands” (Q 5:38),
noting that feet are mentioned only in connection with highway robbers.

Those who add the foot after the hand rely on the report that “the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—was brought a slave who had stolen, so he cut off his right hand; when he stole a second time he cut off his foot; when he was brought a third time he cut off his left hand; and when he was brought a fourth time he cut off his other foot.” This narration is transmitted from Jābir ibn ʿAbd Allāh, and in one wording: “When he was apprehended a fifth time, he had him killed.” Ḥadīth specialists, however, deem the report munkar (irregular).

It is further refuted by his saying—peace and blessings be upon him—“They are grave offenses, and for each of them there is a punishment,” in which no killing is mentioned, as well as by the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿAbbās: “The Prophet—peace be upon him—cut the foot after the hand.” According to Mālik, on the fifth offense the thief is merely disciplined.

If the prescribed limb is unavailable for reasons other than theft—for example, the hand is paralysed—one view in the Mālikī school is that the punishment transfers to the left hand; another view is that it transfers to the foot.

They also differed about the exact point at which the foot is to be severed. One opinion is that it is cut at the joint where the leg begins; another that the two ankles are included in the cut; another that they are not; and yet another that the cut is made at the joint in the middle of the foot.

All jurists agree that the owner of the stolen property may pardon the thief as long as the case has not reached the ruler, on the strength of the report narrated by ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb, from his father, from his grandfather, that the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—said: “Settle the ḥadd offenses among yourselves; once a ḥadd reaches me, it becomes obligatory.”