Islamic Fiqh > Penalties (hudud) > Sariqa: theft in fiqh > The points of disagreement when theft is committed by a group
Contents
Updated on 25 September 2026 at 3:23 PM
This part belongs to the full section: All sections of this part.
This section is part of the full chapter: All sections of this chapter.
The jurists differed on the hypothesis that the share of each of them falls below the threshold: is the cutting due upon all of them together or not?
The Hanafis and the Shafi'is are of the view that no cutting is due upon any of them, because none of them has stolen a full threshold: his hand is therefore not cut off, just as if he had acted alone. The Shafi'is said: the legal effect of theft comprises 2 things, compensation and cutting. Since it is established that the compensation due from each of them is assessed independently, his cutting must likewise be assessed independently.
And since, when one person alone steals a threshold spread over 3 secured places, he is not cut off and one part of his act is not built upon another, then the inapplicability of the cutting to 3 persons who stole a threshold from one secured place is all the more warranted, and the act of one is not built upon the act of another, because each person is more directly concerned with his own acts than with the acts of others.
Their partnership differs from their partnership in killing for 2 reasons:
The first: if we did not impose retaliation upon them, partnership would become a means of dropping retaliation, unlike theft, where avoiding the cutting is not a means of dropping the fixed punishment. The difference between them is that partners in theft do not usually intend the theft of a single threshold, because of the small share that reaches each of them.
The second: retaliation is attached to an indivisible cause, which is the taking of life, so it is attributed to all of them, unlike theft, for the cutting is attached to a divisible cause, namely the taking of the threshold or its absence (al-Umm 6/149 ; see al-Hawi al-Kabir 13/297 and 298, al-Bayan 12/441, Rawdat at-Talibin 6/568, al-Ikhtiyar 4/127, al-Jawhara an-Nayyira 5/386, al-Lubab 2/324).
The Malikis are of the view that if a group jointly steals something worth a quarter of a dinar, they are cut off if it is something whose carrying requires cooperation, in accordance with the apparent meaning of the texts and the report of cutting the hand for a quarter of a dinar and above. And because they participated in something that, had each of them done it alone, would have entailed the punishment: their partnership is therefore like their acting singly. The case of reference is their partnership in a killing.
And because for injuries that entitle the taking of limbs, the group that participates in them incurs what the single perpetrator of the destruction of limbs incurs. The case of reference is the group that cut off a man's hand, or cut from him other than the hand. And because their joint participation in extracting the stolen item from the secured place requires the cutting of all of them, without regard to their individual extraction. The proof is that if they stole goods and loaded them upon a beast to take them out of the secured place, all of them are cut off.
If it is something a single person can carry alone, there are 2 reports in the school: cutting, or no cutting.
And if each of them took something on his own, none of them is cut off, unless the value of what he extracted reaches the threshold. What another extracted is not added to what he extracted, in accordance with the report, and because the theft of none of them has reached the threshold: the cutting is therefore not due upon him, as if he had acted alone (al-Istidhkar 7/556 ; see al-Ishraf ala Nukat Masa'il al-Khilaf 4/471 and 472, ad-Dakhira 12/169, Ahkam al-Quran 2/112).
The position of the Hanbalis is like that of the Malikis, in the first ruling only: if a group jointly steals something worth 3 dirhams, they are cut off, because reaching the threshold is one of the 2 conditions of the cutting, and when the group participates in it, it counts as one person, by analogy with the breach of the secured place. And because stealing a threshold is an act that entails the cutting: the single individual and the group are equal in it, like retaliation.
The Hanbalis do not distinguish between the stolen item being heavy, requiring the group to carry it together, and each of them extracting a part of it. Ahmad expressly stated this, because they participated in breaching the secured place and extracting the threshold: the cutting is therefore due upon them, as if it had been heavy and they had carried it. It differs from retaliation, for retaliation relies upon equivalence, and equivalence is found only when their acts cover all parts of the hand, whereas in our question the aim is deterrence, with no regard for equivalence, and the need to deter the extraction of wealth.
Whether they enter the secured place together, or one enters and extracts part of the threshold, then the other enters and extracts the remainder: they participated in breaching the secured place and extracting the threshold, and the cutting is due upon them both, as if they had carried it together (al-Mughni 9/120 and 121 ; see Sharh az-Zarkashi 3/134, al-Ifsah 2/273 and 274).
The Malikis, in one view, and the Shafi'is are of the view that if 2 people jointly breach a secured place, one of them enters, takes the goods and hands them to the other, who is outside the secured place, and he takes them, the cutting falls upon the one who entered, alone, to the exclusion of the one outside, because he is the thief, according to the word of Allah the Most High:
« The male thief and the female thief: cut off their hands. »
Surah al-Ma'ida, 38
The Malikis, in the relied-upon position of their school, and the Hanbalis are of the view that if the 2 of them breached a secured place, one of them entered and brought the goods near the opening, and the one outside inserted his hand and extracted them, the cutting falls upon them both, because they participated in breaching the secured place and extracting the goods: it is due upon them, as if they had carried them together and extracted them. And if he placed them in the opening and the other stretched out his hand and took them, the cutting falls upon them both (al-Mughni 9/121 ; see Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 6/239 and 240, Matalib Uli an-Nuha 6/6 and 234).
The Hanafis are of the view that if he breached, inserted his hand and extracted the goods, or entered and handed the goods to another from outside, neither of them is cut off. As for the first, it is because the breach did not occur in its complete form, which is entry into the place: a presumption of nonexistence therefore remains in it, and the fixed punishment is not due. As for the second, it is because the one inside did not extract the goods, due to the intervention of a legally counted hand upon them before their exit, and the one outside committed no breach of the secured place: the theft is therefore not complete from either of them.
According to Abu Yusuf, the cutting applies in the first case, because the aim of theft is the extraction of wealth from the secured place, and this has occurred. It is as if he had inserted his hand into the money changer's chest and taken the dirhams out of it. In the second question, if the one inside took his hand out and handed the goods to the one outside, the one inside is cut off ; and if the one outside inserted his hand and took them from the hand of the one inside, both are cut off, this being built upon the first question.
The answer is that the complete violation of the sanctity of the secured place lies in entering it, which is possible and customary, and which did not occur here, unlike the chest, for what is possible in its case is inserting the hand into it without entering it (al-Ikhtiyar 4/127).
The jurists differed on the hypothesis that 2 people jointly violate a secured place, one of them enters and steals a threshold or more, then throws it to the one outside, and the one outside takes it: is the cutting due upon both of them, upon the one who entered alone, or upon neither of them?
The Hanafis are of the view that no cutting is due upon either of them, because the one who entered did not extract the goods, due to the intervention of a counted hand before their extraction, and the one outside committed no breach of the secured place: the theft is therefore not complete from either of them (al-Ikhtiyar 4/127).
The Malikis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis are of the view that if 2 people jointly made a breach, one of them entered, took the stolen item from the secured place and threw it outside, and the one who had not entered took it while he himself remained in the secured place, the cutting falls upon the thrower alone (al-Ishraf ala Nukat Masa'il al-Khilaf 4/476 and 477 ; see ash-Sharh al-Kabir with the hashiya of ad-Dasuqi 6/351, Tahbir al-Mukhtasar 5/384 and 385, al-Ifsah 2/274, Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 6/239 and 240, Matalib Uli an-Nuha 6/6 and 234, Rawdat at-Talibin 6/570).
The jurists differed on the hypothesis that 2 people breach a secured place, one of them enters and steals, brings the stolen goods near the opening, and the one outside stretches out his hand and takes them: are both of them cut off, or only the one outside?
The Hanafis are of the view that if 2 people jointly breach a secured place, one of them enters the secured place and then hands the goods to another from outside the house or the secured place, or he inserts his hand into a room and takes, he being called the cunning thief, the one who hands over and the one who receives are not cut off. Of the first, extraction did not occur, due to the intervention of a counted hand upon the wealth before its exit ; and of the second, no breach of the secured place occurred: the theft is therefore not complete from either.
The same applies if the one inside took his hand out and handed the goods to the one outside, or if the one outside inserted his hand and took them from the hand of the one inside: this is the apparent position of the school. Likewise, if he placed them in the opening, then went out and took them, he is not cut off according to the correct view (al-Ikhtiyar 4/127 ; see Hashiyat Ibn Abidin ala ad-Durr al-Mukhtar 4/100 and 101).
The Malikis and the Shafi'is are of the view that if 2 people jointly breach a secured place, one of them enters without the other entering, the one inside brings the goods near the opening and leaves them, then the one outside inserts his hand, stretches it out and takes them from the secured place, the cutting falls upon the one who extracted them from the secured place, because the cutting is due for the violation of the sanctity of the secured place and the extraction of the thing from it, and this was realized by the second: the cutting must therefore fall upon him.
The Malikis and the Shafi'is, in one view, said: if they met in the middle of the opening, both are cut off, that is, if he placed the goods in the middle of the opening and the other took them and extracted them, both are cut off together. And the most apparent of the 2 views according to the Shafi'is is that neither of them is cut off (al-Ishraf ala Nukat Masa'il al-Khilaf 4/476 and 477 ; see ash-Sharh al-Kabir with the hashiya of ad-Dasuqi 6/351, Tahbir al-Mukhtasar 5/384 and 385, al-Hawi al-Kabir 13/295, Rawdat at-Talibin 6/569).
Al-Mawardi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the case where 2 people jointly breach a secured place, one of them enters it, takes the stolen item with his hand without leaving the secured place, and the other takes it from him without entering, is to be examined. If the hand of the one who entered came out of the secured place with the stolen item, the one who entered is cut off, to the exclusion of the one outside, because he is the extractor from the secured place... And if the one outside inserted his hand into the secured place and took it from it, the one outside is cut off, to the exclusion of the one inside, because he is the one who extracted it from the secured place: the cutting therefore falls, in both situations, upon the one inside if he took his hand out, and upon the one outside if he inserted his hand (al-Hawi al-Kabir 13/295).
The Hanbalis are of the view that if 2 people breach a secured place, one of them enters and steals a threshold, then brings the stolen threshold near the opening, and the other inserts his hand and extracts it from the opening, both of them are cut off, because they participated in breaching the secured place and extracting the threshold, as if they had carried it together and extracted it. Likewise if he placed it in the middle of the opening and the one outside took it: both are cut off (al-Mughni 9/121 ; see Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 6/239 and 240, Matalib Uli an-Nuha 6/6 and 234).
The jurists agreed that if 2 people participate in theft in that one breached the secured place and another extracted, while they were not cooperating, each acting on his own without agreement between them, as when another person happens to come and extracts, no cutting is due upon either of them.
They differed on the hypothesis that they were definitely cooperating: are both of them cut off, or is neither of them cut off?
The Malikis are of the view that if they participated in the theft in that one breached the secured place and another extracted, while there was cooperation and agreement between them, both are cut off (Ahkam al-Quran 2/112 ; see Tafsir al-Qurtubi 6/164).
The majority of jurists, the Hanafis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, are of the view that if one breached alone and the other entered alone and extracted the goods, no cutting is due upon either of them, because the first did not steal and the second did not breach the secured place: he only stole from a secured place breached by someone else. He is like the case where a man made a breach and went away, and another came, found the secured place already breached and stole from it. One of them guarantees the wall, that is, the secured place, and the other what he took (al-Ikhtiyar 4/127 ; see Hashiyat Ibn Abidin ala ad-Durr al-Mukhtar 4/100 and 101, Rawdat at-Talibin 6/567, Asna al-Matalib 4/147, al-Mughni 9/121).
The Shafi'is held, in one view, that the Muslim is not cut off for stealing the property of a dhimmi, just as he is not killed for killing him (Rawdat at-Talibin 6/578 ; see an-Najm al-Wahhaj 9/186, Mughni al-Muhtaj 5/485).
The Shafi'is are of the view that the dhimmi is cut off, because of the commitment he has undertaken to abide by the rulings, whether he accepts our judgment or not. In another view, he is not cut off until they bring their dispute before us (Rawdat at-Talibin 6/578 ; see an-Najm al-Wahhaj 9/185, Mughni al-Muhtaj 5/485).
Abu Umar Ibn Abd al-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) said: if a dhimmi steals from another dhimmi and they do not bring their dispute before us, the matter is not raised with us ; if they bring it before us, we judge among them by the judgment of Allah, for this is part of their mutual wrongs, which we are obliged to prevent when it is referred to us. And if a dhimmi steals from a Muslim, the judgment then belongs to us, and the cutting is due. The well-known hadith indicates that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) only stoned the 2 Jews because they had referred their case to him (at-Tamhid 14/393).
The jurists differed regarding the mu'ahad (treaty-bound non-Muslim) or the harbi granted safe conduct: if he enters under a guarantee of safety and steals from the property of a Muslim or a dhimmi, is his hand to be cut off or not?
The Malikis, in the relied-upon position of their school, the Shafi'is in one view, and the Hanbalis in the relied-upon position of their school, are of the view that he is cut off if he steals, even if from a mu'ahad like himself, as the Malikis expressly stated. It is like the fixed punishment for slander and retaliation, because theft is part of corruption on earth, and the right to the cutting belongs to Allah the Most High: no one is exempted from it.
And because it is a fixed punishment that may be demanded of him: it is therefore due upon him like the punishment of slander. This is supported by the fact that the cutting is due as a protection for wealth, and the punishment of slander is due as a protection for honor: if one of the 2 is due from him, the other is due as well (Bada'i' al-Sana'i' 7/67 ; see ad-Dakhira 3/447 and 12/142, at-Taj wa-l-Iklil 5/359, Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 8/102, ash-Sharh al-Kabir with the hashiya of ad-Dasuqi 6/354, al-Hawi al-Kabir 13/330, Rawdat at-Talibin 6/578, an-Najm al-Wahhaj 9/186, Mughni al-Muhtaj 5/485, al-Ifsah 2/285, al-Mughni 9/111 and 112, al-Kafi 4/174, al-Mubdi' 9/135, al-Insaf 10/281, Kashshaf al-Qina' 6/181).
Imam Abu Hanifa, Muhammad, the Shafi'is in the most apparent view, Ashhab among the Malikis and Ibn Hamid among the Hanbalis are of the view that he is not cut off, because he has undertaken no commitment: he is like the harbi remaining in enemy territory. And because he took it upon the belief that it was permissible, and he has not undertaken the rulings of Islam. And because it is a fixed punishment due to Allah the Most High: it is not carried out upon him, like the fixed punishment of fornication (Bada'i' al-Sana'i' 7/71 ; see Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-Ulama 3/450, Rawdat at-Talibin 6/578, an-Najm al-Wahhaj 9/186, Mughni al-Muhtaj 5/485, al-Mughni 9/111 and 112, Tahbir al-Mukhtasar 5/385).