His statement, “or something else,” means something other than a pocket, such as what is kept at one’s side. A pocket is more secure, because it is on the chest and one is aware of it; theft often occurs from the side.

His statement, “And it is stipulated,” means that amputation for theft has conditions in addition to the general conditions mentioned previously.

His statement, “that the stolen property be lawfully protected wealth”: two conditions apply to the stolen item. The first is that it be property; whatever is not property does not entail amputation. The second is that it be lawfully protected; if it is property that is not lawfully protected, then amputation does not apply.

Examples of lawfully protected property include clothing, food, dirhams, dinars, books, and so forth.

Funds held in banks are lawfully protected. There is a distinction between what is unlawful in itself and what is unlawful due to the manner in which it was acquired. What is unlawful in itself is forbidden and has no legal inviolability, whereas what is unlawful due to its acquisition is forbidden only with respect to the one who acquired it. Bank funds, however, are legally protected, kept in secure custody, and guarded.

As for what is not property, its theft does not entail amputation—for example, stealing wine, since it is not property in the first place. If one steals a free-born child, his hand is not amputated, because the child is not property. But if he steals a young slave, his hand is amputated, because a slave is property.

If he steals a little girl wearing gold jewelry, then both property and that which is not property are involved. According to the madhhab, his hand is not amputated, because a factor permitting amputation and a factor preventing it are combined. The factor permitting amputation is the theft of the jewelry, while the factor preventing it is the theft of the girl, because she is free-born.