Is the hand to be severed if a group steals property amounting to the minimum threshold (Nisab) collectively, but not individually?
Chapter on Amputation in Theft
Al-Mughni
Book of Ḥudūd (Prescribed Penalties)
Primary text
There is no cutting of the hand unless the share of each individual thief reaches the minimum threshold (Nisab). This is the opinion of Ath-Thawri, Abu Hanifa, Ash-Shafi'i, and Ishaq. They reason that since each individual did not steal the Nisab on his own, the cutting is not incumbent, analogous to a single person acting without reaching the Nisab. This view is preferred because the cutting lacks explicit textual support (Nass) in this scenario, and caution dictates withholding the penalty due to ambiguity, as it is a matter to be averted by doubt. The proponents of this view argue that since the Nisab is one of the conditions for cutting, when a group jointly achieves it, they are treated as a single entity, analogous to the violation of the enclosure (Hirz).
Supporting text
Malik stated that if each individual thief only took a portion and did not individually take the Nisab, no one's hand is to be cut, similar to how no retaliation (Qisas) is due if each person involved in causing a wound only severs a part of a limb. Conversely, other jurists, including Ahmad and Malik (with modification), hold that the cutting is incumbent because the group collectively violated the enclosure and achieved the threshold necessary for cutting, similar to if they carried a heavy object together. They distinguish this from Qisas, which requires exact reciprocity.