However, it may be said that the matter requires further detail: if his intention was to take the container, his hand is amputated; but if his intention was to take the wine, it is not amputated. This may be determined if the man does not drink wine and, as soon as he takes it out, pours it away; in that case, he intended the container, and his hand is therefore amputated. Likewise, if he pours out the wine before taking it from its place, then leaves with the container, he is subject to amputation, because he stole the container.

Question: If someone steals perfumes containing alcohol in an amount capable of causing intoxication, is his hand amputated or not?

Answer: If we hold that it is wine, then his hand is not amputated. But if we hold that it is not wine, and that it is property of monetary value which may be bought and sold, then his hand is amputated.

Accordingly, the matter returns to the judgment of the lawful authority, for it is the judge who presides over such a case, since the scholars differ over this issue.

His statement, “It is stipulated that it reach the prescribed minimum,” is the third condition; that is, for amputation to apply, the stolen property must reach the prescribed minimum. The prescribed minimum varies according to its respective context: in the chapter on zakah, the minimum for silver is two hundred dirhams, and for gold, twenty dinars; but here it differs.

His statement, “It is three dirhams”: dirhams are made of silver, and one dirham is seven-tenths of a mithqal. Thus, three dirhams are twenty-one tenths, that is, two mithqals and one-tenth of a mithqal.

His statement, “Or one-quarter of a dinar”: this is one mithqal, and a mithqal is four and one-quarter grams. Thus, one-quarter of a dinar is one gram and one-sixteenth of a gram, that is—