Is a person liable for amputation if stolen property, which they previously obtained through wrongful seizure (Ghasb) or theft, is then stolen again by a third party after they secured it?
Chapter on Amputation in Theft
Al-Mughni
Book of Ḥudūd (Prescribed Penalties)
Primary text
If a person seizes property wrongfully (Ghasib) or steals it and secures it, and then a thief steals it from him, he is not liable for amputation. The evidence supporting this is that he did not steal the property from its owner or the owner's representative. This situation is analogous to finding lost property and taking possession of it. The distinction lies in that a thief acts against the owner or their deputy, removing possession and stealing from its secure location.
Supporting text
Imam Malik holds that amputation is obligatory in this case because the person possessed an amount qualifying for amputation (Nisab) which was secured in its proper receptacle (Hirz Mithli), and there was no ambiguity regarding its status. Al-Shafi'i has two opinions on the matter, mirroring the two primary views. Abu Hanifa holds the same ruling as our position regarding the second thief, but the same ruling as our position regarding the wrongful seizer (Ghasib).