meet the specific criteria inherent in this definition. If any one of those criteria is absent, the prescribed amputation is not carried out. Those criteria are:

1. The taking must be done clandestinely. When the taking is not covert, no amputation is imposed—as when someone seizes property by overpowering the owner in full view of the people, or wrests it from him by force—because, in such cases, the owner can call for help and restrain the aggressor.

   Imam Ibn al-Qayyim said, “Only the thief’s hand is cut off, not that of the snatcher (muntahib) or the usurper (ghāṣib), because a person can guard himself against the latter. A thief, however, breaks into houses, violates safes, and smashes locks. Were his hand not cut off, people would plunder one another, the harm would grow immense, and the tribulation severe.”

   The author of al-Ifṣāḥ states, “There is consensus that the pick-pocket (mukhtalis), the snatcher (muntahib), and the usurper (ghāṣib), despite the enormity of their crimes and sins, are not to have their hands cut off. Rather, their aggression may be curbed through beating, exemplary punishment, lengthy imprisonment, and any other deterrent measure.”

2. The stolen item must be property whose ownership the Law respects. What is not considered property—such as musical instruments, wine, swine, or carrion—possesses no sanctity. Similarly, if the item is property but lacks legal protection because its owner is a belligerent unbeliever, no amputation is imposed, for the life and wealth of a combatant unbeliever are not inviolable.

3. Another requirement for enforcing the ḥadd of theft is that the