or any other items, or who enters by a route the public does not normally use, must have his hand cut.
Whoever steals from a merchant’s shop in the marketplace—whether the shop is large or small, and whether the theft occurs by night or by day—will have his hand cut once the value of what he took reaches the legal minimum, unless the shop lies inside a qaysariyya (an enclosed market) surrounded by gates and walls. At night such a qaysariyya is regarded as a single ḥirz, so no amputation is carried out until the thief has left the complex with the stolen goods.
Anyone who abducts a child or a non-Arab from their place of protection is likewise subject to amputation, whereas one who steals ornaments belonging to the Kaʿba incurs no amputation.
Regarding the person who removes a child’s anklet, earring, or any part of his jewelry or clothing, Mālik’s position is reported in two ways: on one occasion he said that no amputation is due, and on another that the hand is to be cut—except when the thief snatches it by force and makes no attempt at concealment.
Whoever steals carpets, lamps, or any fittings from a mosque is not to be amputated. A report from Mālik, adopted by a group of his followers, states that if the theft takes place in daylight no amputation is imposed, but if it occurs at night after the mosques have been locked, then his hand is cut. Another narration from Mālik rules for amputation in every case, because in his view the mosque itself is a ḥirz by virtue of the mats, marble, chandeliers, and lamps found therein, whether its doors are open or closed. Thus the reports from Mālik and his companions differ on this point.
A grave, in his judgment, is a ḥirz for what it contains; therefore, if a grave-robber takes from it property whose value reaches the statutory limit, his hand is cut. By contrast, if someone steals a corpse’s shroud from the house where the body was washed after entering along with the other people present, he is not liable to amputation.
Ibn al-Qāsim transmitted that a man who steals from his debtor property equal to the amount he is owed must have his hand cut, but the majority of jurists—both Mālikīs and others—disagreed, permitting a creditor to take his due from a debtor whenever and however he can. This permissive view is also attributed to Mālik by Ziyād and Ibn Wahb.
Anyone who confesses to theft under coercion or threat does not have his hand cut. Mālik, however, said that he must nonetheless pay the value of what he confessed to, though his hand is not amputated.