the streets, where they are regarded as securely kept. Gold, silver, diamonds, pearls, and the like are kept in chests.

If a man were to come across a wooden chest containing pounds on the threshold of a shop at one o’clock in the night, and it was not securely locked, then he took the pounds and everything in it, this would not be regarded as secured property. It is therefore not theft, and no hand amputation is prescribed for it.

His statement, “from property,” excludes that which is not property.

His statement, “inviolable,” refers to the property of a Muslim, a dhimmī, a person under treaty, or one granted safe-conduct. This excludes the case where it is taken from the property of one whose property is not inviolable, such as a ḥarbī; his property has no inviolability, and we may take it by whatever means.

His statement, “in which he has no claim of right”: “he” refers to the taker, and “it” refers to the property. That is, it must not be from the property of his son, his father, his wife, or the like—someone from whose property he is customarily permitted to take.

His statement, “doing so covertly,” excludes what is done openly. No hand amputation is prescribed for it, even if he takes a great amount of property.

Thus, this wording encompasses most of the conditions for hand amputation in theft:

First: the taker must be subject to the rulings of Islamic law.

Second: the property taken must reach the niṣāb.

Third: it must be kept in a secure place appropriate to property of its kind.

Fourth: it must be property.

Fifth: the property must belong to someone whose property is inviolable.