Book of Amputation for Theft
Introduction
The prescribed amputation for theft becomes obligatory only when the stolen property meets certain conditions:
-
Its value must reach a complete quarter of a dīnār in pure gold, or the equivalent in any other form. If a thief steals a quarter-dīnār of raw bullion that equals a quarter-dīnār in minted coin, the sounder view is that no amputation is carried out. Should he steal gold dīnār coins while thinking they were copper fulūs whose value does not reach a quarter-dīnār, his hand is nevertheless cut. The same ruling applies when he takes a threadbare garment whose pocket contains the full quarter, a fact he did not know, according to the preponderant opinion.
-
If he removes a niṣāb (the minimum threshold amount) from a ḥirz (secure place) twice, and in between the owner learns of the first theft and restores the safeguard, the second removal counts as a separate act of theft; otherwise, according to the sounder view, a single amputation is inflicted. If he bores a hole in a container of wheat or the like and a niṣāb flows out, he is cut according to the more correct opinion. When two thieves cooperate in removing two separate niṣābs, both are cut; if together they remove less than that, neither is.
-
No amputation is imposed for stealing wine, swine, a dog, or an untanned hide of a dead animal. However, if the vessel that holds the wine itself is worth a niṣāb, the punishment is carried out on the correct view. Likewise, there is no cutting for a lute (ṭanbūr) or similar instrument, though another opinion maintains that if its broken pieces are worth a niṣāb, the hand is cut. I say: the second opinion is the stronger, and Allah knows best.
The second overarching condition is that the stolen item belong to someone other than the thief. If, before removing it from the ḥirz, he acquires ownership through inheritance or otherwise, or if its value drops below a niṣāb because part of it is consumed, he is not cut. The same applies when he claims ownership of the niṣāb amount. If two people steal together and one of them claims the property for himself—or for both of them—while the other denies that claim, the claimant is not cut, whereas, according to the stronger opinion, the other is. If someone steals from the ḥirz of his partner in jointly owned property, no amputation is carried out, according to the more authoritative view, even if his personal share is negligible.
The third condition is that he have no plausible quasi-claim (shubha) to the property.