If a thief's hand is amputated for theft, and he subsequently commits theft again, is a second amputation required?
Chapter on Amputation in Theft
Al-Mughni
Book of Ḥudūd (Prescribed Penalties)
Primary text
A second amputation is required if a thief commits theft after his hand has already been amputated for a previous theft. This applies whether the second theft is from the original victim or another person, and whether the stolen item is the same one that led to the first amputation or a different item. This is the position of Imam Al-Shafi'i. The basis for this ruling is that the penalty is mandated by an act concerning a specific object; therefore, repetition of the act on the same object, or different objects, necessitates repetition of the penalty, analogous to Zina. The purpose is deterrence, and since the first penalty did not deter him, a second penalty is necessitated, similar to a custodian (Mudi') who steals another item.
Supporting text
Imam Abu Hanifa held that if the amputation was for stealing an item, a second amputation for stealing that same item is not repeated, unless there is a transformation, such as stealing yarn (ghazl) and then stealing it after it has been woven, or stealing unripe dates (rutab) and then stealing them when they are ripe (tamr). He argued this penalty is tied to the right of a human being, so repetition concerning the same root object is void, analogous to slander (Qadhf).