secure place itself; in that case, his hand is not amputated. For example, a man enters a library containing books and burns them. Their value may be considerable—if he stole a single one of those books, his hand would be amputated—but he has not stolen; rather, he has destroyed the property. We therefore say in this case that his hand is not amputated, but he is liable for the value of the property and is subject to such discretionary punishment as the imam considers appropriate, because this is an act of disobedience.

His statement, “and that he removes it from the secure place”: the correct wording would be, “and that it be from a secure place,” because removal has already been mentioned earlier. This is the fourth condition: for amputation to be obligatory, the theft must be from a secure place. A secure place is that by which property is protected and kept safe.

His statement, “If he steals it from somewhere other than a secure place, then there is no amputation”: the evidence for this is the Prophet’s saying concerning fruit: “Whoever steals any of it after it has been brought into the drying area, and its value reaches that of a shield, is liable to amputation. Whoever steals less than that is liable to twice its value and to punishment.” (1) This is because, before it is brought into the drying area, it is not kept in a secure place. The drying area is where dates are gathered to dry. Thus, if something is stolen from a place that is not secure, there is no amputation, on the basis of this hadith. The hadith therefore qualifies the general import of the verse: “As for the male thief and the female thief, cut off their hands.” [al-Ma'idah: 38]

His statement, “The secure place for property is that in which it is customarily kept”: ḥirz (secure place) is the subject; “that” is a relative pronoun functioning as the predicate of the subject; and “custom” is the subject, while “keeping it” is the predicate.