Even so, I find this matter somewhat problematic, because Allah, Exalted is He, says:

“There is no blame upon the blind, nor is there blame upon the lame, nor is there blame upon the sick, nor upon yourselves if you eat from your own houses, or the houses of your fathers, or the houses of your mothers, or the houses of your brothers, or the houses of your sisters, or the houses of your paternal uncles, or the houses of your paternal aunts, or the houses of your maternal uncles, or the houses of your maternal aunts, or from those whose keys you possess, or from the house of your friend.” [al-Nur 24:61]

Thus, there is no blame upon us for eating from the homes of any of these people. This indicates that we are afforded a degree of latitude with respect to them. It may be said, however, that the noble verse means that there is no blame upon us if we enter these homes and eat from them. But if they are locked against us, they are inviolable and secured; therefore, violating them is, in principle, subject to amputation.

His statement: “Neither spouse is subject to amputation for stealing from the other’s property, even if it has been secured against him or her.” That is, a husband is not subject to amputation for stealing from his wife’s property, nor is a wife subject to amputation for stealing from her husband’s property. As for a wife’s theft from her husband’s property, the element of doubt is present, because the husband is obliged to maintain her. The husband may be negligent, leading her to steal from his property: she may break open the chest and take from it. But if the chest is open, she may take from it, based on the Prophet’s ruling—peace and blessings be upon him—to Hind, the wife of Abu Sufyan (1), may Allah be pleased with her. Yet in fact, we must bear in mind: