1592- Issue; he said: "If a group participates in a theft whose value is three dirhams, they shall have their hands amputated."

This is the opinion of Malik and Abu Thawr. Al-Thawri, Abu Hanifah, al-Shafi'i, and Ishaq said: There is no amputation for them unless the share of each one of them reaches the threshold (nisab); because each one did not steal a threshold, so amputation did not become mandatory upon him, just as if he had acted alone without the threshold. This opinion is more pleasing to me; because there is no explicit text (nass) regarding amputation in this case, nor is it in the meaning of that which is explicitly textually stipulated or agreed upon, so it is not mandatory. Exercising precaution by dropping it is better than exercising precaution by making it mandatory, because it is something that is averted by doubts. Our companions argued that the threshold is one of the two conditions for amputation, so if a group participates in it, they are (1) like one person, by analogy to the violation of the protected area (hirz). Also, because the theft of the threshold is an act that necessitates amputation, so the individual and the group are equal therein, like retaliation (qisas). Our companions did not differentiate between the stolen item being heavy, which a group participates in carrying, and each one of them extracting a part of it. Ahmad provided a text on this. Malik said: If each one acts alone with a part of it, none of them shall be amputated, just as if each one of those who cut a hand acted alone in cutting a part of it, retaliation would not be mandatory. To us, [the argument is] that they participated in violating the protected area and extracting the threshold, so amputation became incumbent upon them, just as if it were heavy and they carried it together. This differs from retaliation, for that relies on equivalence, and equivalence is not found unless their actions exist on all parts of the hand. In our issue, the objective is deterrence without considering equivalence, and there is a need to deter from extracting property (2). It is the same whether they entered the protected area together, or one of them entered and extracted part of the threshold, then the other entered and extracted the remainder, because they both participated in violating the protected area and extracting the threshold, so amputation became incumbent upon them both, just as if they had carried it together.

Section: If one of the two partners is someone upon whom amputation does not apply, such as the father of the person from whom it was stolen, he shall be amputated.