and so theft becomes insignificant in his eyes; then he steals something that reaches the minimum threshold, and his hand is amputated. This reconciles the hadiths.

As for those who say that this is merely hyperbole, that is untenable, for the Lawgiver has established a ruling—namely, that his hand is amputated. The correct view, therefore, is to understand it according to one of the two meanings. In my view, the second is more likely, because the first involves a degree of contrivance, remoteness, and departure from the apparent meaning.

If the value of the stolen property decreases, or the thief comes to own it, amputation is not waived, …

His statement, “If the value of the stolen property decreases, or the thief comes to own it, amputation is not waived,” means that a thief steals an item worth one-quarter of a dinar—or, according to the madhhab, three dirhams—but when the case is brought before the judge, its value has fallen so that it is worth less than one-quarter of a dinar. Is the determining consideration the time when the case is brought before the judge, or the time of the theft?

The answer is the latter. Hence he said, “If its value decreases”—that is, at the time the case is brought before the judge—amputation is not waived, because at the time he stole it, he stole property that met the minimum threshold.

For example, he steals a pen worth one-quarter of a dinar, but by the time the case is brought before the judge, the pen is worth only one-eighth of a dinar, either because its price has declined, because the pen has broken, or for some similar reason. In this case, amputation is not waived; rather, it remains applicable.

His statement, “or the thief comes to own it,” apparently refers, according to the wording, to the value, since he said, “If the value of the stolen property decreases, or he comes to own it”—that is, its value. But this is not what is meant. Rather, what is intended is that he comes to own the stolen item itself; in that case, amputation is not waived.