applies to either of two partners who steal from the house where they had placed their joint property for safekeeping: if one of them takes, over and above his own share, an amount that reaches the statutory threshold, his hand is amputated. A slave is treated the same way; should he steal, from that same custodian’s house, property belonging to his master’s partner, his hand is cut exactly as in the case of a partner.

Neither a father nor a paternal grandfather is amputated for stealing from the wealth of a son or grandson, whatever the circumstances. As for a son who steals from his father’s property, his case is governed by the same rule that applies between spouses.

Some of Mālik’s companions do not cut the hand of one who steals from the spoils of war unless he takes, in excess of his allotted share, an amount that would normally trigger amputation; other scholars of Medina hold that no amputation is due in such a case at all.

Regarding fruit still on the treetops, the tender palm heart, standing crops, green vegetables, grazing livestock, and the trunks of palm trees and other trees, two opinions exist. One holds that no amputation is incurred as long as the fruit is on the palms and the crops are still standing in the field. Once the fruit has been brought to the threshing-floor, the grain to the barns, and the livestock to the pen, whoever steals from any of these—provided the amount reaches the required limit—has his hand cut; though a second view states that even then no amputation applies.

Whoever uproots a tree or a palm from its place and carries it away is not amputated. If, however, the owner himself has uprooted it and placed it in his house or enclosure, anyone who then steals it—so long as its value meets the threshold—will have his hand cut. It makes no difference whether the threshing-floor, the pen, or the wall around the property is furnished with a gate or a fence, for the wall, the threshing-floor, and the pen themselves constitute a secure enclosure; this is the position of Mālik and his colleagues. Some scholars, among them Ashhab, do not prescribe amputation for uprooted trees that remain in a place from which, had someone uprooted them, no amputation would have been required.

If a thief, while still inside a house, dwelling, or any other secure area, seizes the stolen property before he exits that precinct, and the item has thus come under his control and become