Is the removal of the left hand sufficient if the right hand was intended to be severed for theft?
Chapter on Amputation in Theft
Al-Mughni
Book of Ḥudūd (Prescribed Penalties)
Primary text
The removal of the left hand suffices in place of the right hand for theft. No further action is taken against the executioner other than disciplinary punishment (*adab*). This view is held by Qatadah, Ash-Sha'bi, and the Ashab ar-Ra'y (Hanafi school). The reasoning is that severing the thief's right hand leads to the complete loss of the benefits associated with that limb, and severing both hands for a single theft is not legislated. Since severing the right hand is nullified (by impossibility or error), severing the left hand fulfills the obligation, and thus no retribution (*qisas*) is due against the executioner.
Supporting text
The companions of the author hold two opinions regarding the obligation to sever the right hand of the thief. Imam Ash-Shafi'i has two opinions concerning the executioner who cuts the left hand, either not knowing it was the left, or believing it would suffice: one opinion states the right hand is not severed so that both hands are not cut for one theft, and the second states it is severed, similar to if the left hand were cut as retribution (*qisas*). Regarding the executioner, both the author's school and Ash-Shafi'i agree that if the executioner cut the left hand without the thief's consent, or if the thief presented it out of confusion or belief it would suffice, and the executioner knew it was the left and that it would not suffice, then *qisas* is due upon the executioner. If the executioner did not know it was the left, or thought it would suffice, then *diyah* (blood money) is due.