Mālik—and many of those who make a ḥirz a pre-condition—hold that the thief’s hand is severed once he has carried the goods out of the house, whereas Abū Yūsuf and Muḥammad say that no amputation is incurred unless he exits the entire dwelling.

They likewise disagreed over the grave: does it constitute a ḥirz such that the grave-robber’s hand must be cut off, or not? Mālik, al-Shāfiʿī, Aḥmad, and a number of other scholars—including ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz—consider it a ḥirz and therefore subject the grave-robber to amputation. Abū Ḥanīfah, Sufyān al-Thawrī, and, according to one report, Zayd ibn Thābit, say that no amputation is due.

In Mālik’s view, a ḥirz, in general terms, is anything customarily used to safeguard the kind of property in question. Hence, for him, stables where animals are tied, storage vessels, and even the clothes a person is wearing all count as a ḥirz—the person himself being the ḥirz for whatever is on his person or in his possession.

If a sleeper rests his head on something, that object likewise enjoys the protection of a ḥirz, as indicated by the ḥadīth of Ṣafwān ibn Umayyah, to be cited later. What is taken from someone who is awake is deemed ikhtilās (snatching). In Mālik’s school, the hand is not cut off for stealing jewelry or other articles worn by a child unless the child is accompanied by a guardian who is watching him. Nor, in his view, is amputation carried out for taking anything from the Kaʿbah, or from a mosque in general—though some Maliki jurists have said that if the theft from a mosque occurs at night, the thief’s hand is to be cut off.

The subsidiary questions in this chapter—what counts as a ḥirz and what does not—are many. All who require a ḥirz agree that anyone deemed to have removed property from its ḥirz must have his hand severed, whether he was inside the ḥirz or outside it at the time. When that designation is uncertain, disagreement arises, as in the case of two thieves, one inside the house and the other outside: the one inside brings the stolen goods to a hole in the wall and the one outside takes them. Some say amputation falls on the one outside who receives the goods; others say on neither of them; still others say on the one inside who moved the goods toward the hole.

All these divergences come down to whether the label “remover from the ḥirz” applies to a given person or not. Such, then, is the discussion of the ḥirz and its being a condition for the obligation of the ḥadd.

Whoever throws the stolen item out of the ḥirz and then retrieves it outside must have his hand cut off. Mālik suspended judgment where the thief is apprehended after throwing the object but before leaving; Ibn al-Qāsim held that amputation is nevertheless required.

Section

As for the kind of property stolen, the scholars agree that whenever the object is owned, inanimate, and lawfully saleable and compensable, amputation is mandatory for its theft—apart from perishable edible items and things whose original status is public permissibility, regarding which they differed. The majority hold that amputation applies to every valuable item that may be sold and for which compensation can be taken.

Abū Ḥanīfah maintains that no amputation is due for food, nor for items whose original nature is licit for all, such as game, firewood, and grass. The majority rely on the general wording of the Qur’anic verse that mandates amputation, together with the broad range of reports that stipulate the niṣāb. Abū Ḥanīfah’s evidence for excluding moist food is the Prophet’s—peace and blessings be upon him—statement: “No amputation…"