What is the ruling if a hand intended for amputation (due to theft) is removed by retaliation (qisas), disease, or an aggressor before the amputation is executed?
Chapter on Amputation in Theft
Al-Mughni
Book of Ḥudūd (Prescribed Penalties)
Primary text
If a hand designated for amputation due to theft is subsequently removed, either by way of qisas for another offense, lost to disease, or severed by an aggressor, the required amputation is waived. The aggressor is only subject to discretionary punitive measures (adab). This view is held by Malik, Al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr, and the Companions of the Opinion (Ashaab al-Ra'y). The reasoning is that the hand of the thief was removed, and the person who cut it severed a limb that was not sacrosanct (i.e., its preservation was no longer legally required by the initial theft ruling, having already been lost).
Supporting text
Qatadah maintained that the cutter should face qisas, and the thief's remaining leg should be amputated. This view is incorrect because the thief's hand was already lost, and the cutter removed a limb that was no longer legally protected in its original state.