Is one who misappropriates from the spoils of war considered a thief? The answer is no, for he is subject to a specific ruling: his baggage and belongings are to be burned.

His statement, “with respect to a deposit”: a deposit is when someone is entrusted with safeguarding property. Entrusting another with property is called istīdāʿ (placing something in safekeeping), while the property entrusted to him is called a deposit.

For example, you give a man a book and say, “This is a deposit with you for one month.” When the month has passed and you come to ask him for it, he says, “You have nothing with me, and I do not know you.” Such a person has betrayed the trust regarding the deposit, but his hand is not amputated, because he did not take the property covertly.

His statement, “or a loaned item”: likewise, one who betrays a trust concerning a loaned item is not subject to hand amputation. A loaned item is property given to another so that he may benefit from it and then return it.

For example, you give him this book and say, “Benefit from it for a month, a week, or a year.” When the period ends and you come to ask for it, he says, “You have nothing with me.” Such a person has betrayed the trust, so his hand is not amputated, because this is not theft.

This is the view adopted by the author, may Allah have mercy on him, and it is the position of the majority of the scholars: one who betrays a trust concerning a loaned item is not subject to hand amputation. However, the established position of the school differs from the view adopted by the author: according to the school, one who betrays a trust concerning a loaned item is subject to hand amputation. They cited as evidence the hadith concerning the Makhzumite woman, who would borrow goods and then deny having done so; the Prophet commanded that her hand be amputated (1).