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 fāʿil indicates (i.e. is derived from) the maṣdar (root word), and (therefore) does not encompass quantity (i.e. there is no repetition). Such that (the Aḥnāf say) only one is intended in the āyah of sariqah (stealing). (Therefore) with one action only one hand is cut off (as punishment for stealing).
ʿAllāmah al-Nasafī now sets the discussion of ism fāʿil alongside that of amr, since the two share the property of not encompassing repetition.
According to al-Shāfiʿī and the Jamhūr, the limbs are cut every time the description (stealing) is found. They cite ﴿وَالسَّارِقُ وَالسَّارِقَةُ فَاقْطَعُوا أَيْدِيَهُمَا جَزَاءً بِمَا كَسَبَا نَكَالًا مِّنَ اللَّهِ﴾1, holding that the right hand is cut for the first offence, the left leg for the second, the left hand for the third, and the right leg for the fourth. Consensus governs the cutting of the right hand on the first offence; the disagreement is over what follows.
The Aḥnāf, holding that ism fāʿil does not encompass repetition, take the āyah of sariqah to imply only the first cutting. As for the second offence, they hold that the āyah is not a sufficient ground: the meaning fixed by ijmāʿ is the cutting of the right hand, and once the right hand has been cut the command can no longer be carried out, since no right hand remains.
For the second offence, the Aḥnāf hold that the left leg should be cut, again by ijmāʿ. They take additional evidence from the actions of ʿUmar and ʿAlī (raḍ. ʿanhumā) to ground this; the repetition of punishment turns not on the āyah but on supplementary supports for the naṣṣ. For the third offence, the thief is imprisoned. The Aḥnāf do not adopt the ḥadīth that prescribes cutting the left hand, holding it to be khabar wāḥid, and on their methodology a khabar wāḥid may not add to the Qurʾān.
One may put a question to the Aḥnāf: if the punishment for stealing is not repeated, why is the punishment for fornication repeated? The reference is to ﴿الزَّانِيَةُ وَالزَّانِي فَاجْلِدُوا كُلَّ وَاحِدٍ مِّنْهُمَا مِائَةَ جَلْدَةٍ﴾2. The Aḥnāf reply that the sabab, namely the skin, is always present, so the fornicator is whipped on every fresh occurrence of the sin. Stealing is unlike this, since once the right hand has been cut the punishment can no longer be carried out.
ʿAllāmah al-Nasafī defines _khāṣṣ_ as any utterance fixed for a single known meaning, whether of a genus, a species, or an individual, and lays out its ruling and seven subsidiary applications.
ولا يقتضي التكرار و لا يحتمله: and the amr does not demand repetition, nor does it encompass it. The difference between mūjib and muḥtamil, and how the Aḥnāf account for the repetition of acts of worship through their asbāb.
ʿAllāmah al-Nasafī opens Manār al-Anwār with a doxology and a statement of the four sources of the sharīʿah: the Qurʾān, the Sunnah, ijmāʿ, and qiyās.
وحكم الأمر نوعان أداء و هو تسليم عين الواجب بالأمر و قضاء و هو تسليم مثل الواجب به The ruling of …
