the two views in the school of Imam Ahmad; it is also the view of al-Shafi‘i.

Some scholars held that any unmarriageable blood relative—that is, a relative such that, if one were male and the other female, marriage between them would not be valid—is not subject to amputation for stealing from the property of that relative. According to this view, a brother is not subject to amputation, nor is a nephew or an uncle. As for a cousin, however, he is subject to amputation, because he is not an unmarriageable blood relative. This is the broadest of the schools of thought regarding relatives.

There is a fourth view: if maintenance is obligatory, there is no amputation; but if it is not obligatory, amputation applies, apart from the father. This view has considerable strength, for the obligation of maintenance owed to this person creates an element of doubt: the person responsible for his maintenance may perhaps be negligent in providing for him, causing him to steal from that person’s property. Thus, there are four views:

The first—and the well-known position of Imam Ahmad’s school—is that stealing from the property of one’s ascendants or descendants does not entail amputation.

The second is that theft from the property of all relatives entails amputation, except when a father steals from his child’s property.

The third is that theft from the property of relatives entails amputation, unless the relative is an unmarriageable blood relative.

The fourth is that if maintenance is obligatory, there is no amputation; but if it is not obligatory, amputation applies, apart from the father.

When we refer back to the general texts, we find that the strongest view is the second: amputation is waived in the case of the father, while anyone else is subject to amputation; or the fourth view, which restricts the exemption to cases where maintenance is obligatory.