Chapter: Amputation for Theft

Shaykh al-Islām—may Allah have mercy on him—was asked:

A man’s house was repeatedly burgled. Later, after he had locked its door, a slave was found inside. He was apprehended and admitted that he had entered the house stealthily on numerous occasions, but did not admit to taking anything. Is he liable for what they have lost from the house? What is the ruling concerning him?

He replied:

This slave is to be punished, by the consensus of the Muslims, for his proven entry into the house. Many scholars also hold that he is to be punished.

If he makes an admission establishing that he took the property—for example, by indicating where it is, or to whom he gave it, or something similar—the property is to be recovered and returned to its owner if it still exists. If it has been lost or destroyed, he must compensate for it.

The person administering his punishment should use ingenuity to induce him to confess, as skilled judges and governors do with those whose wrongdoing becomes apparent to them, until he admits it. At the very least, the referral of the oath to the claimant should be attested against them. If the owner of the property then swears the oath, judgment is given in his favor upon his oath.

As for ruling in favor of the owner on the strength of his oath, on the basis of the grounds for suspicion and indications that have emerged