earning wealth through honorable, lawful avenues; this increases productivity, draws forth the earth’s fruits, causes the world to flourish, and ennobles souls.

Out of His wisdom, Exalted is He, He set the minimum amount that incurs amputation at the equivalent of a quarter dinar of gold. This protects wealth and preserves life, so that security may prevail, hearts rest at ease, and people may release their capital for gain and investment.

Points derived from the hadith:

1. The thief’s hand is to be cut off. “Thief” here refers to one who takes property from its secure place clandestinely; it does not include the usurper, the marauder, or the snatcher.

   Qadi ‘Iyad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: “Allah safeguarded people’s property by obligating amputation for the thief and by not prescribing it for other forms of taking, such as snatching, pillage, or usurpation. Those are relatively rare compared with theft, can usually be recovered by appealing to the authorities, and proof for them is easy to establish. Theft, in contrast, is seldom supported by clear evidence; therefore its gravity was magnified and its punishment intensified so that the deterrent effect would be stronger. The Muslims have reached consensus, in principle, on amputating the thief’s hand.”

2. The two hadiths show that the threshold for amputation is a quarter dinar of gold, or its equivalent value of three dirhams in silver. The various juristic views on this limit will be presented shortly.

3. Ibn Daqiq al-‘Id said: “Value (qīmah) and purchase-price (thaman) are in fact different. If the item’s current value and the price for which the owner bought it diverge, only the current value is considered.”

4. The scholars have stipulated conditions for amputating the thief’s hand; some have already been noted. Chief among the remaining conditions are:

   • The stolen property must have been taken from a place customarily deemed secure for such property. What counts as a secure place varies with the type of property, the region, and the authorities. Custom (‘urf) is the reference point; consequently, no amputation is due for property taken from a place not customarily regarded as secure.

   • All doubt (shubha) must be absent. Thus no amputation is carried out when the thief has a partial claim to the property, such as a son stealing from his father, a father from his son, a poor person taking from an endowment for the poor, or someone taking from jointly owned assets.

   • The theft must be proven either by a valid confession from the thief or by the testimony of two upright witnesses.

5. This lofty ruling embodies profound legislative wisdom. In fact, all the prescribed penalties are, in general, forms of mercy and blessing, for within human society there are individuals whose souls have been steeped in a love of harm and a desire to disturb