وكذا اسم الفاعل يدل على المصدر ولا يحتمل العدد حتى لا يراد بآية السرقة إلا سرقة واحدة وبالفعلالواحد لا تقطع إلا يد واحدة
Likewise, the Ism Faail indicates (i.e. is derived from) the masdar (root word), and (therefore) does not encompass quantity (i.e. there is no repetition). Such that (the Ahnaf say) only one is intended in the ayah of surqah (stealing). (therefore) with one action only one hand is cut off (as punishment for stealing).
Allamah al-Nasafi then brings the discussion of Ism fail in close proximity to that of amr, due to them both being similar in that both do not encompass the meaning of repetition.
According to Shafi’ and the Jamhoor, everytime the description (stealing) is found, then the limbs should be cut. This is due to the ayah { وَالسَّارِقُ وَالسَّارِقَةُ فَاقْطَعُوا أَيْدِيَهُمَا جَزَاءً بِمَا كَسَبَا نَكَالًا مِّنَ اللَّهِ}[1] Such that the right hand should be cut the first time round, the left leg for the second time, the left hand for the third time and the right leg for the fourth time round. The Ijma is that the right hand should be cut upon the first time, however there is a difference of opinion with regards to a repetition of the act.
According to the Ahnaf, as they say the Ism fail does not encompass the meaning of repetition, the ayah of surqah only implies that the cutting should take place the first-time round. As for the second time, they say that the ayah is not sufficient to prove this. This is because the specified meaning, as agreed by ijma, is to cut the right hand, and therefore once the right hand has been cut it is not possible to carry out the command anymore, as there is no right hand remaining to cut off.
The Ahnaf hold that upon the second time of stealing the left leg should be cut off, as it is ijma. They look for additional evidence to the Quran ayah in order to establish this, such as the actions of Umar or Ali (May Allah be pleased with them). This repetition of punishment is not due to the ayah, rather it is due to additional evidence which support the nass. Furthermore, according to the Ahnaf, upon the third time of stealing the thief should be imprisoned. They do not take the hadith to substantiate the cutting of the left hand, as they hold that it is khabr wahid, and according to the Ahnaf it is not permissible for a khabr wahid to add to the Quran.
One may question the Ahnaf; If the repetition of punishment for stealing is not allowed, then why is the repetition of punishment allowed for fornication. This is in reference to the ayah {الزَّانِيَةُ وَالزَّانِي فَاجْلِدُوا كُلَّ وَاحِدٍ مِّنْهُمَا مِائَةَ جَلْدَةٍ}[2]. The Ahnaf will say that the sabab which is the skin is found. As the skin will always be there, the fornicator will be whipped on account of them repeating the sin. This is in contrast to stealing, as once the right hand has been cut off it is not possible to carry out the punishment.
[1] Quran 5:38
[2] Quran 24:2
