Thus, ascendants and descendants are not subject to amputation for stealing one another’s property. The ascendants are the father and grandfather, however high the line extends, and the mother and grandmother, however high the line extends. The descendants are the son, however low the line extends, and the daughter, however low the line extends.

This is the view adopted by the author—may Allah have mercy on him—though there are other views on the matter, which we shall mention later, Allah willing.

His statement, “The father and mother are alike in this respect,” means—as we have said—that this applies to ascendants and descendants.

His statement, “A brother is subject to amputation,” means a full brother, a paternal half-brother, or a maternal half-brother; thus, he is subject to amputation for stealing from his brother’s property.

His statement, “And every relative for stealing his relative’s property,” means that an uncle is subject to amputation, and so is a nephew. This is why he used the general wording: “every relative for stealing his relative’s property.”

Thus, kinship prevents amputation only in the case of ascendants and descendants. This is the well-known position in the Hanbali school.

Some scholars held that every relative is subject to amputation for stealing from his relative, except for the father alone. They cited the general evidence establishing the obligation of amputation, saying: Every person’s property is inviolable to anyone other than its owner, and it is not permissible for us to violate it. The father, however, is not subject to amputation, due to the Prophet’s statement—peace and blessings be upon him—“You and your wealth belong to your father” (1). This is one of