the hadith of Safwan ibn Umayyah, who was sleeping upon his cloak in the Prophet’s Mosque when a man came and stole it. Safwan brought the matter before the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, and the Prophet ﷺ ordered that his hand be cut off. Safwan said, “O Messenger of Allah, would you cut off his hand for a cloak not worth thirty dirhams? I have given it to him as a gift.” The Prophet ﷺ replied, “Why did you not do so before you brought him to me?” (1)

This indicates that had he given it to him before bringing him before the ruler, the prescribed punishment would have been waived. But is this evidence valid for this issue?

Suppose that a thief has stolen and it is established before the ruler that he stole, but no one comes and says to him, “He stole from me.” Is his hand to be cut off or not? According to the madhhab, his hand is not cut off, because no one has come forward to make a claim. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), however, held that a claim is not a condition: once the theft is established, his hand is cut off. This is because the cutting of the hand serves to protect property; it is not a private right belonging to this particular person, such that we should say that his hand is cut off if the owner makes a claim, but otherwise not. This differs from retaliation, for if the victim’s heirs do not make a claim, the offender is not executed.

Issue: Are fingerprints a fourth means of identifying the criminal?

The answer is that they are considered a circumstantial indication, not conclusive proof. For the person who touched the door may have done so before or after the theft. Even if we were to say, “There are no fingerprints on it other than this one,” it may still be said that, even if no other print is found, there remains the possibility that it was left before or after the theft, or that the thief avoided touching this door, instead handling it with an iron tool or something similar.