Section
On Thieves Who Jointly Steal the Minimum Amount Warranting Amputation

Amputation is required upon removing the stolen property from its place of secure keeping, whether one person steals it from another, a group from another group, a group from one person, or one person from a group. Where several thieves cooperate in removing it because they need to act together to do so, the same ruling applies. This is analogous to retaliation for killing: one person may be executed for killing one person, a group for killing a group, one person for killing a group, and a group for killing one person. Likewise, one hand may be amputated in retaliation for one hand, several hands for several hands, several hands for one hand, and one hand for several hands.

Al-Shāfi'ī and Abū Hanīfah said that a group is not subject to amputation for theft, even if its members cooperate, unless each person's share reaches the amount warranting amputation, according to their respective positions on that minimum. Yet they hold that a group may be executed for killing one person, thereby contradicting themselves. The contradiction is more binding upon al-Shāfi'ī, since he holds both that a group may be executed for killing one person and that several hands may be amputated in retaliation for one hand. A life is indivisible, whereas a hand is divisible, so each participant has cut off only part of it. Likewise, the minimum amount is divisible according to him, so each participant has stolen only part of it.

In this question, al-Shāfi'ī also contradicts his own principle that, when twenty men jointly own twenty mithqāls, zakat is obligatory upon them because they share ownership of the minimum amount. The contradiction is plain. Whoever establishes an unsound foundation and builds upon it will see his structure collapse.

I know of no disagreement that, if one person steals property reaching the amount warranting amputation from a group who own it jointly, his hand is amputated. Likewise, there is no disagreement that a slave is executed for killing another slave, and that his hand is amputated for cutting off another slave's hand, even if the slave who was killed or whose hand was cut off belonged to several owners.

Their agreement on this establishes the soundness of Mālik's position that a group is subject to amputation when its members cooperate in stealing the minimum amount. Amputation becomes obligatory because of the inviolability of the minimum amount stolen in the manner described, just as retaliation for a life or a hand becomes obligatory because of its inviolability. The ruling must therefore apply equally in all these cases: one against one, a group against a group, one against a group, and a group against one.

May Allah have mercy on Mālik ibn Anas! He was the Commander of the Faithful in legal reasoning and transmitted reports, and the most knowledgeable of people concerning analogical reasoning. That is Allah's bounty, which He grants to whom He wills.