What is the ruling if the accused thief claims the taken property was legally his (e.g., a deposit, pledge, sale, gift, authorized taking, or prior usurpation)?
Chapter on Amputation in Theft
Al-Mughni
Book of Ḥudūd (Prescribed Penalties)
Primary text
If the accused claims the property taken was rightfully his due to a prior legal relationship—such as a deposit (wadi'ah), pledge (rahn), sale (ibtia'), gift (hibah), prior permission, or that it was usurped from him or his father, or that part of it belongs to him—the statement of the victim (al-masruq minhu) is accepted provided he swears an oath. This is because legal possession (yad) was established for the victim. If the victim swears, the claim of the thief falls away, and no amputation is carried out because the thief's claim is plausible. If the victim refuses to swear (nakul), the ruling is against him based on his refusal, and the amputation is applied. This is the primary narration mentioned and is the explicit position of Al-Shafi'i.
Supporting text
There is a second narration from Ahmad stating that amputation must be carried out in such a case, because allowing the prescribed penalty to be dropped based solely on the claimant's assertion negates the deterrent purpose of the punishment for theft. A third narration from Ahmad states that if the thief is known for previous theft, amputation is carried out because his falsehood is known; otherwise, the penalty is dropped.