Cross-amputation

Cross-amputation () is a form of punitive judicial limb amputation and one of the Hudud punishments prescribed under Islamic jurisprudence (Sharia law). if it meets the 76 requirements. It involves cutting off the right hand and left foot of the transgressor for act of terrorism and highway robbery etc. for thief (not petty thief) the punishment for first offence is right hand (or four fingers for shi'a) and left foot for second offense (to avoid misbalance, again for shi'a it's toes) The scriptural authority for the double amputation procedure is in the Quran (surah 5: 33 and 38) which stipulates:

The right hand is amputated during administration of the punishment regardless of whether the victim is right- or left-handed,. for shi'a madhab it's for fingers than the actual hand. Hudud were famous for seldom being implemented because the evidentiary standards were very high. Based on a hadith, jurists stipulated that hudud punishments should be averted by the slightest doubts or ambiguities. Meeting hudud requirements for zina and theft was virtually impossible without a confession in court, which could then be invalidated by a retraction.

Requirements

Malik ibn Anas, the originator of the Maliki judicial school of fiqh, recorded in his work Al-Muwatta a great many detailed circumstances under which the punishment of hand amputation should and should not be carried out.

In his comments on the verse in the Quran on theft, scholar Yusuf Ali asserted that most Islamic jurists believe that "petty thefts are exempt from this punishment", and that "only one hand should be cut off for the first theft." a minority of modern jurists consider the word to mean cutting off their power to commit thief.

Another list of restrictions comes from a fatwa given by one TaqÃÂ« al-DÃÂ«n ÃÂ¿AlÃÂ« b. ÃÂ¿Abd al-KÃÂfÃÂ« al-SubkÃÂ« (d. 756/1356), a senior Shafi scholar and judge from one of the leading scholarly families of Damascus. According to Taqi, Hadd [punishment] is only obligatory for perpetrator of a theft for whom the following conditions apply:<blockquote>

[the item] was taken from a place generally considered secure (Ã¡Â¸Â¥irz)
it had not been procured as spoils of war (mughannam)
nor from the public treasury
and it was taken by his own hand
not by some tool or mechanism (ÃÂla)
on his own
while he was of sound mind
and of age
and a Muslim
and free
not in the Haram
in Mecca
and not in the Abode of War
and he is not one who is granted access to it from time to time
and he stole from someone other than his wife
and not from a uterine relative
and not from her husband if it is a woman
when he was not drunk
and not compelled by hunger
or under duress
and he stole some property that was owned
and would be permissible to sell to Muslims
and he stole it from someone who had not wrongfully appropriated it
and the value of what he stole reached three dirhams of pure silver by the Meccan weight
and it was not meat
or any slaughtered animal
nor anything edible or potable
or some fowl or game
or a dog
or a cat
or animal dung
or feces (ÃÂ¿adhira)
or dirt
or red ochre (maghara)
or arsenic (zirnÃÂ«kh)
or pebbles or stones
or glass
or coals
or firewood
or reeds (qaÃ¡Â¹Â£ab)
or wood
or fruit
or a donkey or a grazing animal
or a copy of the Quran
or a plant pulled up from its roots (min badÃÂ'ihi)
or produce from a walled garden
or a tree
or a free person
or a slave
if they are able to speak and are of sound mind
and he had committed no offense against him
before he removed him from a place where he had not been permitted to enter
from his secure location
by his own hand
and witness is born
to all of the above
by two witnesses
who are men
according to [the requirements and procedure] that we already presented in the chapter on testimony
and they did not disagree
or retract their testimony
and the thief did not claim that he was the rightful owner of what he stole
and his left hand is healthy
and his foot is healthy
and neither body part is missing anything
and the person he stole from does not give him what he had stolen as a gift
and he did not become the owner of what he stole after he stole it
and the thief did not return the stolen item to the person he stole it from
and the thief did not claim it
and the thief was not owed a debt by the person he stole from equal to the value of what he stole
and the person stolen from is present [in court]
and he made a claim for the stolen property
and requested that amputation occur
before the thief could repent
and the witnesses to the theft are present
and a month had not passed since the theft occurred

</blockquote>Another restriction is that a thief who makes a confession before the testimony be allowed to retract his confession after. For if the thief does that first and then direct evidence (bayyina) is provided of his crime and then he retracts his confession, the punishment of amputation is dropped according to the more correct opinion in the Shafi school, because the establishment [of guilt] came by confession not by the direct evidence. So his retraction is accepted.

Practice

The ancient punishment, typically used for highway robbery (hirabah, qat' al-tariq) and civil disturbance against Islam, is usually carried out in a single session in public. In the case of a repeat thief, who may already have had a right hand previously removed for theft, a second offence can lead a court to impose a second judicial amputation of a foot. In countries mentioned below doctors attend the amputations to manage blood loss and pain by administering tourniquets, analgesic medication and bandaging.

The country with the most recent cases is Iran with "at least 223 amputations [of fingers] have been carried out by Iranian authorities out of 384 known sentences since 1979, according to the US-based rights group the Abdorrahman Boroumand Center." using a specialized machine for finger amputation than hand according to shi'a sharia.

Brunei enacted in 2019 "...new penal code, which also includes the amputation of a hand and a foot for the crime of theft." but has not carried out the punishment as of 2025.

Saudi Arabia saw a high of 27 amputations in 2000 https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/mde230532000en.pdf but amputation sentences were commuted in 2012https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/mde230222012en.pdf and no sentences are widely reported since then.

The punishment is also practiced in other countries such as Sudan; Somalia; Mauritania, the Maldives; and Yemen. The practice was common during the ISIS Caliphate and continues to be used in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.

Cross-amputation

Requirements

Practice

References