you are able.” (1) We have said that there is some weakness in this hadith, but its meaning is sound, because the basic principle regarding people’s honor and bodily integrity is inviolability and protection. They cannot be violated except with certainty. Thus, the thief’s hand cannot be cut off except with certainty; if there is any doubt, there is no amputation. Doubt is of four types: doubt concerning ownership, doubt concerning the acquisition of ownership, doubt concerning free access, or doubt concerning maintenance.

His statement, “There is no amputation for stealing from one’s father’s property,” means that if someone steals from his father’s property, his hand is not cut off, because there is a doubt—not a doubt concerning ownership or the acquisition of ownership, since a son does not acquire ownership of his father’s property—but rather a doubt concerning maintenance and free access. That is, he has free access to his father’s property—what is colloquially called miyānah—and does not see anything wrong with taking something from it. Therefore, if a son steals from his father’s property—even if it is securely kept behind firmly locked doors—his hand is not cut off, due to the presence of this doubt.

His statement, “even if he is higher,” includes stealing from his grandfather, his maternal grandfather, and his mother as well. In the case of his mother, the doubt is not that of maintenance, but rather that of free access; that is, he has free access to his mother’s property.

His statement, “Nor from his child’s property, even if he is lower,” refers to the father and mother. Thus, if a father steals from his child’s property, his hand is not cut off. The doubt here is very strong: the doubt concerning the acquisition of ownership, maintenance, and free access. For the father says: “This is my child’s property, and my child and I are one and the same.” Likewise, a mother’s hand is not cut off for stealing from her child’s property.