al-Moulakhas al-Fiqhi - Salih Al-Fawzan - (2/553)

of the locality. If, therefore, he removes the property from somewhere that is not deemed a ḥirz—such as finding the door already open or a vault whose lock has been broken and then taking what is inside—no amputation is inflicted.

Any possibility of doubt concerning the thief’s entitlement to what he took must also be eliminated. Should he have a plausible ground that he believes entitles him to take it, the ḥadd is not carried out, for the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “Repel the prescribed penalties as far as you can whenever a doubt arises.” Hence no hand is cut when someone takes from his father’s wealth, or when a father takes from his child’s wealth, because each of them is obliged to spend on the other, and that reciprocal duty creates a doubt that averts the ḥadd. The same rule applies to anyone who has a legitimate share in property: if he takes from it, his hand is not severed. The act itself, however, remains unlawful; he is disciplined for it and must return what he took.

Moreover, the theft must be proven as described above, either: (1) by the testimony of two upright witnesses who specify how the theft occurred, the nature of the ḥirz, and the amount and type of the stolen goods, thereby eliminating all conjecture and ambiguity; or (2) by the thief’s own confession, repeated twice. Abū Dāwūd relates that a thief who had confessed was brought to the Prophet ﷺ. The Prophet said to him, “I do not suppose you actually stole.” The man replied, “Yes, indeed.” The Prophet repeated the question two or three times; when the admission was confirmed, he ordered that the man’s hand be cut off.

In that confession the thief must also describe the theft itself, so that the possibility is dismissed that he imagines amputation applies to something for which it is not prescribed and so that the presence or absence of the necessary conditions can be verified.

Finally, the owner of the stolen property must demand his right. If he does not lay claim to it, the amputation is not enforced, for property becomes lawful when its owner permits and offers it. When he makes no demand, it is conceivable that he has pardoned the thief, and that doubt is sufficient to suspend the ḥadd.

عادة البلد، فإن سرقه من غير حرز، كما لو وجد بابا مفتوحا، أو حرزًا معتوكا، فأخذه منه؛ فلا قطع عليه ولا بد أن تنتفي الشبهة عن السارق فيما أخذ، فإن كان له شبهة يظنها تسوِّغ له الأخذ؛ لم يقطع؛ لقوله ﷺ: "ادرؤوا الحدود بالشبهات ما استطعتم"؛ فلا قطع عليه بسرقته من مال أبيه ولا بسرقته من مال ولده؛ لأن نفقة كل منهما تجب من مال الآخر، وذلك شبهة تدرأ عنه الحد، وهكذا كل من له استحقاق في مال؛ فأخذ منه؛ فلا قطع عليه، لكن يحرم عليه هذا الفعل، ويؤدب عليه، ويرد ما أخذ. ولا بد من توافر ما سبق من الصفات من ثبوت السرقة: إما بشهادة عدلين يصفان كيفية السرقة وحرزها وقدر المسروق وجنسه؛ لتزول الاحتمالات والشبهات، وإما بإقرار السارق مرتين على نفسه بالسرقة؛ لما روى أبو داود؛ أنه ﷺ أتى بلص قد اعترف، فقال له: "ما أخالك سرقت" قال: بلى. فأعاد عليه مرتين أو ثلاثا؛؛ فأمر به، فقطع. ولا بد في إقراره أن يصف السرقة؛ ليندفع احتمال أنه يظن القطع فيما لا قطع فيه، وليعلم توافر شروط أو عدم توافرها. ولا بد أن يطالب المسروق منه بماله، فلو لم يطالب؛ لم يجب القطع لأن المال يباح بإباحة صاحبه وبذله له، فإذا لم يطالب؛ احتمل أنه سمح به له، وذلك شبهة تدرأ الحد.