A bath with a piece of soap costs two dirhams.

Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated: The Prophet (ﷺ) said: No amputation except for ten dirhams. [Narrated by al-Tabarani in Al-Awsat]

Al-Tirmidhi narrated in Jami‘ from Ibn Mas‘ud: No amputation except for a dinar or ten dirhams, but it is mursal, narrated by al-Qasim ibn Abd al-Rahman from Ibn Mas‘ud, and al-Qasim did not hear from Ibn Mas‘ud. Ali al-Qari said: It is authentic, but in Abu Hanifa’s Musnad, compiled by al-Hasfaki, from Ibn Muqatil, from Abu Hanifa, from al-Qasim ibn Abd al-Rahman ibn Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud, from his father, from Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud: Hands were amputated in the Prophet’s (ﷺ) time for ten dirhams. Another narration: Amputation was only for ten dirhams. This is connected and raised. Even if stopped, it has the ruling of a raised hadith, as legal quantifications are not subject to reason, so a stopped narration is treated as raised. Muhammad narrated in Kitab al-Athar from Abu Hanifa, from al-Qasim, from his father, from Ibn Mas‘ud: A thief’s hand is not amputated for less than ten dirhams. Ahmad narrated from Amr ibn Shu‘ayb, from his father, from his grandfather, raised, similarly. Ibn Abi Shayba narrated from al-Qasim: Umar was brought a man who stole a garment. He told Uthman: Value it. He valued it at eight dirhams, and he did not amputate.

(2) The statement: No amputation except for ten dirhams: Theft linguistically is taking another’s property secretly, regardless of what it is. Legally, conditions were added: the thief must be sane, as Allah called amputation a deterrent, a punishment requiring a crime, which needs sanity and puberty. The stolen item must be valued, owned property from a secure place (hirz) with no doubt. If taken openly, or not property (e.g., intoxicants), or from an insecure place (e.g., a relative’s house, spouse’s house, host’s house), or by cutting a purse from outside, or unowned property (e.g., waqf), or less than ten dirhams, amputation is not required. The thief must return the item if it exists or compensate its value if destroyed. The ruling: Amputation deters, needed for property valued by people. Value is subjective, varying by custom, so the Sharia specified it. A hadith states: No amputation except for the price of a shield. Its value differed: per us, ten dirhams; al-Shafi‘i, a quarter dinar; Malik, three dirhams. Due to disagreement on the shield’s value but consensus on its specification, we take the highest to be certain, as no one denies amputation for ten dirhams, while lesser amounts are disputed, so amputation is not required due to doubt, to avert punishment. The ten-dirham narration is from a jurist. In sum: Consensus holds amputation for ten dirhams; below that, scholars differ due to varying hadiths, creating uncertainty, so it is not required, as punishments are averted by doubts and require certainty. Ibn al-Humam said: Some, like Hasan al-Basri, Dawud, the Khawarij, and Ibn Bint al-Shafi‘i, said amputation applies to any amount, per the verse’s generality and the Prophet’s (ﷺ) saying: Cursed is the thief who steals an egg and his hand is cut, or a rope and his hand is cut. Most jurists of the regions hold it requires a specific amount. Our school and some Tabi‘in say ten dirhams; al-Shafi‘i, a quarter dinar; Malik and Ahmad, a quarter dinar or three dirhams. Companion consensus is cited, restricting the verse. Reason: Trivial items lack desire, like a wheat grain, included in the verse’s generality, and cannot be taken secretly, failing theft’s condition of secrecy. Thus, the rope and egg hadith is interpreted as a ten-dirham rope, an iron egg, or pre-specification when the verse was revealed vaguely, later clarified, or abrogated, as amputation initially had no minimum. Gathered from Uqud al-Jawahir, Al-Tafsir al-Ahmadiyya, Al-Kawkab al-Durri, Badhl al-Majhud, Al-Ta‘liq al-Mumajjad, Al-Mirqat, and Kanz commentaries.

In the time of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, a mudd was exchanged for a dirham.

Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated: The Prophet (ﷺ) said: No amputation except for ten dirhams. [Narrated by al-Tabarani in Al-Awsat]

Al-Tirmidhi narrated in Jami‘ from Ibn Mas‘ud: No amputation except for a dinar or ten dirhams, but it is mursal, narrated by al-Qasim ibn Abd al-Rahman from Ibn Mas‘ud, and al-Qasim did not hear from Ibn Mas‘ud. Ali al-Qari said: It is authentic, but in Abu Hanifa’s Musnad, compiled by al-Hasfaki, from Ibn Muqatil, from Abu Hanifa, from al-Qasim ibn Abd al-Rahman ibn Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud, from his father, from Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud: Hands were amputated in the Prophet’s (ﷺ) time for ten dirhams. Another narration: Amputation was only for ten dirhams. This is connected and raised. Even if stopped, it has the ruling of a raised hadith, as legal quantifications are not subject to reason, so a stopped narration is treated as raised. Muhammad narrated in Kitab al-Athar from Abu Hanifa, from al-Qasim, from his father, from Ibn Mas‘ud: A thief’s hand is not amputated for less than ten dirhams. Ahmad narrated from Amr ibn Shu‘ayb, from his father, from his grandfather, raised, similarly. Ibn Abi Shayba narrated from al-Qasim: Umar was brought a man who stole a garment. He told Uthman: Value it. He valued it at eight dirhams, and he did not amputate.

(2) The statement: No amputation except for ten dirhams: Theft linguistically is taking another’s property secretly, regardless of what it is. Legally, conditions were added: the thief must be sane, as Allah called amputation a deterrent, a punishment requiring a crime, which needs sanity and puberty. The stolen item must be valued, owned property from a secure place (hirz) with no doubt. If taken openly, or not property (e.g., intoxicants), or from an insecure place (e.g., a relative’s house, spouse’s house, host’s house), or by cutting a purse from outside, or unowned property (e.g., waqf), or less than ten dirhams, amputation is not required. The thief must return the item if it exists or compensate its value if destroyed. The ruling: Amputation deters, needed for property valued by people. Value is subjective, varying by custom, so the Sharia specified it. A hadith states: No amputation except for the price of a shield. Its value differed: per us, ten dirhams; al-Shafi‘i, a quarter dinar; Malik, three dirhams. Due to disagreement on the shield’s value but consensus on its specification, we take the highest to be certain, as no one denies amputation for ten dirhams, while lesser amounts are disputed, so amputation is not required due to doubt, to avert punishment. The ten-dirham narration is from a jurist. In sum: Consensus holds amputation for ten dirhams; below that, scholars differ due to varying hadiths, creating uncertainty, so it is not required, as punishments are averted by doubts and require certainty. Ibn al-Humam said: Some, like Hasan al-Basri, Dawud, the Khawarij, and Ibn Bint al-Shafi‘i, said amputation applies to any amount, per the verse’s generality and the Prophet’s (ﷺ) saying: Cursed is the thief who steals an egg and his hand is cut, or a rope and his hand is cut. Most jurists of the regions hold it requires a specific amount. Our school and some Tabi‘in say ten dirhams; al-Shafi‘i, a quarter dinar; Malik and Ahmad, a quarter dinar or three dirhams. Companion consensus is cited, restricting the verse. Reason: Trivial items lack desire, like a wheat grain, included in the verse’s generality, and cannot be taken secretly, failing theft’s condition of secrecy. Thus, the rope and egg hadith is interpreted as a ten-dirham rope, an iron egg, or pre-specification when the verse was revealed vaguely, later clarified, or abrogated, as amputation initially had no minimum. Gathered from Uqud al-Jawahir, Al-Tafsir al-Ahmadiyya, Al-Kawkab al-Durri, Badhl al-Majhud, Al-Ta‘liq al-Mumajjad, Al-Mirqat, and Kanz commentaries.

Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated: The Prophet (ﷺ) said: No amputation except for ten dirhams. [Narrated by al-Tabarani in Al-Awsat]

Al-Tirmidhi narrated in Jami‘ from Ibn Mas‘ud: No amputation except for a dinar or ten dirhams, but it is mursal, narrated by al-Qasim ibn Abd al-Rahman from Ibn Mas‘ud, and al-Qasim did not hear from Ibn Mas‘ud. Ali al-Qari said: It is authentic, but in Abu Hanifa’s Musnad, compiled by al-Hasfaki, from Ibn Muqatil, from Abu Hanifa, from al-Qasim ibn Abd al-Rahman ibn Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud, from his father, from Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud: Hands were amputated in the Prophet’s (ﷺ) time for ten dirhams. Another narration: Amputation was only for ten dirhams. This is connected and raised. Even if stopped, it has the ruling of a raised hadith, as legal quantifications are not subject to reason, so a stopped narration is treated as raised. Muhammad narrated in Kitab al-Athar from Abu Hanifa, from al-Qasim, from his father, from Ibn Mas‘ud: A thief’s hand is not amputated for less than ten dirhams. Ahmad narrated from Amr ibn Shu‘ayb, from his father, from his grandfather, raised, similarly. Ibn Abi Shayba narrated from al-Qasim: Umar was brought a man who stole a garment. He told Uthman: Value it. He valued it at eight dirhams, and he did not amputate.

(2) The statement: No amputation except for ten dirhams: Theft linguistically is taking another’s property secretly, regardless of what it is. Legally, conditions were added: the thief must be sane, as Allah called amputation a deterrent, a punishment requiring a crime, which needs sanity and puberty. The stolen item must be valued, owned property from a secure place (hirz) with no doubt. If taken openly, or not property (e.g., intoxicants), or from an insecure place (e.g., a relative’s house, spouse’s house, host’s house), or by cutting a purse from outside, or unowned property (e.g., waqf), or less than ten dirhams, amputation is not required. The thief must return the item if it exists or compensate its value if destroyed. The ruling: Amputation deters, needed for property valued by people. Value is subjective, varying by custom, so the Sharia specified it. A hadith states: No amputation except for the price of a shield. Its value differed: per us, ten dirhams; al-Shafi‘i, a quarter dinar; Malik, three dirhams. Due to disagreement on the shield’s value but consensus on its specification, we take the highest to be certain, as no one denies amputation for ten dirhams, while lesser amounts are disputed, so amputation is not required due to doubt, to avert punishment. The ten-dirham narration is from a jurist. In sum: Consensus holds amputation for ten dirhams; below that, scholars differ due to varying hadiths, creating uncertainty, so it is not required, as punishments are averted by doubts and require certainty. Ibn al-Humam said: Some, like Hasan al-Basri, Dawud, the Khawarij, and Ibn Bint al-Shafi‘i, said amputation applies to any amount, per the verse’s generality and the Prophet’s (ﷺ) saying: Cursed is the thief who steals an egg and his hand is cut, or a rope and his hand is cut. Most jurists of the regions hold it requires a specific amount. Our school and some Tabi‘in say ten dirhams; al-Shafi‘i, a quarter dinar; Malik and Ahmad, a quarter dinar or three dirhams. Companion consensus is cited, restricting the verse. Reason: Trivial items lack desire, like a wheat grain, included in the verse’s generality, and cannot be taken secretly, failing theft’s condition of secrecy. Thus, the rope and egg hadith is interpreted as a ten-dirham rope, an iron egg, or pre-specification when the verse was revealed vaguely, later clarified, or abrogated, as amputation initially had no minimum. Gathered from Uqud al-Jawahir, Al-Tafsir al-Ahmadiyya, Al-Kawkab al-Durri, Badhl al-Majhud, Al-Ta‘liq al-Mumajjad, Al-Mirqat, and Kanz commentaries.

a man who had committed theft was brought to Umar (RA). He then said to Uthman (RA), 'Estimate the value of what he stole.' Uthman (RA) estimated it to be less than a quarter of a dinar. Umar (RA) did not have his hand cut off.

A non-Arab man's bath soap was stolen, and it was worth one dinar or ten dirhams. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said about it:

Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) narrated: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) amputated a man’s hand for a shield worth a dinar or ten dirhams. [Narrated by Abu Dawud]

Al-Nasa’i, al-Bayhaqi, and al-Tahawi narrated from him: The shield’s price in the Prophet’s (ﷺ) time was valued at ten dirhams. Al-Hakim narrated in Al-Mustadrak from Ibn Ishaq, saying: Authentic per Muslim’s conditions, but he did not include it. Al-Nasa’i narrated from Amr ibn Shu‘ayb, from his father, from his grandfather: Its price in the Prophet’s (ﷺ) time was ten dirhams.

Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) narrated: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) amputated a man’s hand for a shield worth a dinar or ten dirhams. [Narrated by Abu Dawud]

Al-Nasa’i, al-Bayhaqi, and al-Tahawi narrated from him: The shield’s price in the Prophet’s (ﷺ) time was valued at ten dirhams. Al-Hakim narrated in Al-Mustadrak from Ibn Ishaq, saying: Authentic per Muslim’s conditions, but he did not include it. Al-Nasa’i narrated from Amr ibn Shu‘ayb, from his father, from his grandfather: Its price in the Prophet’s (ﷺ) time was ten dirhams.

Rafi‘ ibn Khadij (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated: The Prophet (ﷺ) said: No amputation for fruit or palm pith. [Narrated by Malik, al-Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud, al-Nasa’i, al-Dari, and Ibn Majah]

Abu Dawud narrated in Marasil from Hasan al-Basri: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: I do not amputate for food. Abd al-Haqq mentioned it without faulting it beyond being mursal, which, as you know, is not a flaw in our view, so it must be acted upon.

(1) The statement: No amputation for fruit or palm pith: In Sharh al-Sunna, Abu Hanifa followed this hadith’s apparent meaning, not requiring amputation for stealing fresh fruits, whether secured or not, and analogized to meat, milk, and drinks. Others required amputation if secured, per Malik and al-Shafi‘i. In Al-Hidaya: No amputation for perishable items like milk, meat, or fresh fruits, per: No amputation for fruit or palm pith. Palm pith is the palm’s core or sap. The Prophet (ﷺ) said: No amputation for food, meaning perishables prepared for eating, like meat or fruit, as amputation applies to wheat and sugar by consensus. Al-Shafi‘i said: Amputation applies, per: No amputation for fruit or palm pith, but if stored in a granary, amputation applies. We say: He followed custom, where granary-stored fruit is dry, subject to amputation. In Al-Mirqat: They conflict on secured fresh fruit; in punishments, the view preventing punishment prevails to avert it. In Al-Lam‘at: No amputation for fruit on trees or unharvested crops due to lack of security. For harvested, secured fruit, al-Shafi‘i requires amputation; Ahmad, in one narration, if from a guarded orchard or tree in a secured house with a nisab stolen. In our view, no amputation for perishables like milk, meat, or fresh fruits, per: No amputation for fruit or palm pith, meaning perishables prepared for eating.

the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: 'I do not cut off what remains of cooked food.' And Imam Abd al-Haq (the Muhaddith of Delhi) mentioned this hadith, stating that there is no knowledge in it except through transmission, and you know for certain that all transmission is not with Ali. Therefore, acting according to this is obligatory for us.

Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated: The Prophet (ﷺ) said: No amputation for a betrayer, plunderer, or snatcher. [Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, al-Nasa’i, Ibn Majah, and al-Darimi]

(1) The statement: No amputation for a betrayer, plunderer, or snatcher: In Al-Hidaya: No amputation for a betrayer, male or female, due to insufficient security, nor for a plunderer or snatcher, as they act openly. The Prophet (ﷺ) said: No amputation for a snatcher, plunderer, or betrayer.

Take [the path] of the one who is firm, not of the one who is weak. And whoever among you mentions the tyrant, he is not of you.

Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated: If a thief steals, his right hand is cut. If he repeats, his left foot is cut. If he repeats, he is imprisoned until he does good. I am ashamed before Allah to leave him without a hand to eat or clean with, or a leg to walk on. [Narrated by Muhammad ibn al-Hasan in Kitab al-Athar]

Abd al-Razzaq, Ibn Abi Shayba, al-Bayhaqi, and al-Daraqutni narrated similarly. Ibn Abi Shayba narrated: Najda wrote to Ibn Abbas about a thief, and he replied with Ali’s view. Sa‘id ibn Mansur narrated from Sa‘id ibn Abi Sa‘id al-Qaburi, from his father: I was with Ali ibn Abi Talib when a man, whose hand and foot were cut, was brought for stealing. Ali asked his companions: What do you think? They said: Cut, O Commander of the Faithful. He said: That would kill him, and he does not deserve death. How would he eat, perform ablution, clean, or stand for his needs? He sent him to prison for days, then consulted again. They repeated their view, and he repeated his, flogged him severely, and released him. Ibn al-Humam said: Narrations of cutting a third or fourth time, if authentic, are understood as policy or abrogated.

(1) The statement: If a thief steals, his right hand is cut, etc.: Scholars agree that for the first theft, the right hand is cut; for the second, the left foot. For a third theft after losing hand and foot, al-Shafi‘i and followers say the left hand is cut, then the right foot for a fourth, then discipline and imprisonment, per Abu Salama and Jabir’s hadith. Abu Hanifa and his companions say: For a third theft, he is imprisoned until he repents, not cut, but disciplined with beating and imprisonment, as amputation no longer applies, leaving deterrence. Our evidence: Companion consensus, as Ali argued: I am ashamed before Allah to leave him without a hand to act or a leg to walk, and none cited a raised hadith, indicating its absence. Al-Tahawi said: We traced these narrations and found no basis. No killing for a fifth theft. If al-Shafi‘i’s narration of killing is authentic, it is policy or abrogated, as the Prophet’s (ﷺ) saying for a fifth theft: If he repeats, kill him, is policy by consensus. In Fath al-Qadir and Al-Mabsut: The hadith is not authentic, or if accepted, abrogated, as early Islam had severe punishments, like the Urayna tribe’s hands, feet, and eyes. In Fath al-Qadir, citing Ali, Ibn Abbas, and Umar’s view: This is firmly established. It is unlikely the Prophet (ﷺ) cut four limbs then killed, unknown to Ali, Ibn Abbas, and Umar, close Companions who would know by custom. Ali’s refusal suggests the narration’s weakness or that it was not a fixed punishment but the Imam’s discretion, seeing corruption or incorrigibility, allowing killing as policy, meaning figurative killing. This aligns with killing as policy for the third theft. (As in Radd al-Muhtar)

Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated: If a thief steals, his right hand is cut. If he repeats, his left foot is cut. If he repeats, he is imprisoned until he does good. I am ashamed before Allah to leave him without a hand to eat or clean with, or a leg to walk on. [Narrated by Muhammad ibn al-Hasan in Kitab al-Athar]

Abd al-Razzaq, Ibn Abi Shayba, al-Bayhaqi, and al-Daraqutni narrated similarly. Ibn Abi Shayba narrated: Najda wrote to Ibn Abbas about a thief, and he replied with Ali’s view. Sa‘id ibn Mansur narrated from Sa‘id ibn Abi Sa‘id al-Qaburi, from his father: I was with Ali ibn Abi Talib when a man, whose hand and foot were cut, was brought for stealing. Ali asked his companions: What do you think? They said: Cut, O Commander of the Faithful. He said: That would kill him, and he does not deserve death. How would he eat, perform ablution, clean, or stand for his needs? He sent him to prison for days, then consulted again. They repeated their view, and he repeated his, flogged him severely, and released him. Ibn al-Humam said: Narrations of cutting a third or fourth time, if authentic, are understood as policy or abrogated.

(1) The statement: If a thief steals, his right hand is cut, etc.: Scholars agree that for the first theft, the right hand is cut; for the second, the left foot. For a third theft after losing hand and foot, al-Shafi‘i and followers say the left hand is cut, then the right foot for a fourth, then discipline and imprisonment, per Abu Salama and Jabir’s hadith. Abu Hanifa and his companions say: For a third theft, he is imprisoned until he repents, not cut, but disciplined with beating and imprisonment, as amputation no longer applies, leaving deterrence. Our evidence: Companion consensus, as Ali argued: I am ashamed before Allah to leave him without a hand to act or a leg to walk, and none cited a raised hadith, indicating its absence. Al-Tahawi said: We traced these narrations and found no basis. No killing for a fifth theft. If al-Shafi‘i’s narration of killing is authentic, it is policy or abrogated, as the Prophet’s (ﷺ) saying for a fifth theft: If he repeats, kill him, is policy by consensus. In Fath al-Qadir and Al-Mabsut: The hadith is not authentic, or if accepted, abrogated, as early Islam had severe punishments, like the Urayna tribe’s hands, feet, and eyes. In Fath al-Qadir, citing Ali, Ibn Abbas, and Umar’s view: This is firmly established. It is unlikely the Prophet (ﷺ) cut four limbs then killed, unknown to Ali, Ibn Abbas, and Umar, close Companions who would know by custom. Ali’s refusal suggests the narration’s weakness or that it was not a fixed punishment but the Imam’s discretion, seeing corruption or incorrigibility, allowing killing as policy, meaning figurative killing. This aligns with killing as policy for the third theft. (As in Radd al-Muhtar)

Abu Hurayra (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated: A thief who stole a cloak was brought to the Prophet (ﷺ). He said: I don’t think he stole. The thief said: Yes, O Messenger of Allah. He said: Take him, cut him, cauterize him, and bring him back. He was cut, cauterized, and returned. He said: Repent to Allah. He said: I repent to Allah. He said: Allah has accepted your repentance. [Narrated by al-Hakim in Al-Mustadrak, who said: Authentic per Muslim’s conditions]

Al-Baghawi narrated in Sharh al-Sunna on thief amputation from the Prophet (ﷺ): Cut him, then cauterize him. Al-Daraqutni, Abu Dawud in Marasil, Abd al-Razzaq, and others narrated similarly.

(2) The statement: Cut him, then cauterize him, etc.: Cauterization is recommended per al-Shafi‘i, obligatory per us, as the hadith’s apparent command implies obligation, with no diversion from its literal meaning, especially since neglecting it risks death, and punishment deters, not destroys, making it obligatory otherwise. (Gathered from Al-Durr al-Mukhtar, Nayl al-Awtar, and Al-Hidaya)

The linguistic scholar did not narrate from the Prophet ﷺ regarding the punishment for theft, but rather paraphrased it. (Al-Darqutni, Abd al-Razzaq, and others have narrated this with similar meaning.)

Fudala ibn Ubayd (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated: A thief was brought to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), his hand was cut, and he ordered it hung around his neck. [Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud, al-Nasa’i, and Ibn Majah]

Al-Nasa’i said: It includes al-Hajjaj ibn Arta’a, who is weak, and his hadith is not used as evidence. Ibn al-Humam said: In our view, this is at the Imam’s discretion if he sees fit, and it is not established that the Prophet (ﷺ) did this for every amputee to make it a Sunna. Abu Dawud, al-Nasa’i, and Ibn Majah narrated from Abu Hurayra (may Allah be pleased with him): The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: If a slave steals, sell him, even for a pittance.

(1) The statement: Hung around his neck: Ibn al-Humam said: Al-Shafi‘i and Ahmad hold it is recommended to hang the hand around the neck, as the Prophet (ﷺ) ordered it. In our view, it is at the Imam’s discretion if he sees fit, and it is not established for every amputee to be a Sunna.

(2) The statement: If a slave steals, sell him, even for a pittance: In Badhl al-Majhud: Mawlana Muhammad Yahya noted: This is mentioned to indicate the Imam may add what he deems appropriate beyond the punishment, as a form of discipline. Selling for a pittance or less than his value is a humiliation, like hanging the hand around the neck.

When a slave steals, you should sell him if the stolen item is worth its price.

Nafi‘ narrated: A slave of Ibn Umar fled and stole during his flight. He was brought to Ibn Umar, who said: Your flight will not save you from Allah’s limits. He cut him. [Narrated by al-Bayhaqi in his Sunan]

Malik narrated similarly.

(3) The statement: He cut him: In Al-Bahr al-Raiq, Al-Mirqat, and Al-Hidaya: If a slave steals from someone other than his master or his master’s wife, he is cut, whether fugitive or not, per this report and the verse: “As for the thief, male or female, cut off their hands” [Al-Ma’ida: 38], which does not distinguish between free and slave. Halving the punishment between free and slave is infeasible, so it is fulfilled to protect people’s property. This is the view of Abu Hanifa, Malik, and al-Shafi‘i (may Allah have mercy on them).

Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) narrated: A man brought his slave to Umar, saying: Cut his hand; he stole my wife’s mirror. Umar said: No amputation; he is your servant, part of your possessions. [Narrated by Malik]

Muhammad’s narration adds: He stole my wife’s mirror worth sixty dirhams.

(4) The statement: No amputation, etc.: Ibn al-Humam said: If one spouse steals from the other, or a slave from his master or master’s wife, there is no amputation, as customary permission to enter disrupts security. (As in Al-Mirqat)

Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated: A thief was brought to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), and he cut him. They said: We did not want it to reach this. He said: If it were Fatima, I would cut her. [Narrated by al-Nasa’i]

Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) narrated: No amputation for a grave robber. [Narrated by Ibn Abi Shayba]

In his narration from al-Zuhri: A grave robber was caught in Muawiya’s time, with Marwan governing Madinah. He consulted attending Companions and jurists, who agreed he should be beaten and paraded. Abd al-Razzaq narrated similarly. Ali al-Qari said: A house locked over a grave, literally or legally, does not make it secure. If something is taken from a house without a locked door or guard, there is no amputation by consensus.

(1) The statement: No amputation for a grave robber: Grave robbing is taking a corpse’s shroud after burial. No amputation for it is the view of Abu Hanifa and Muhammad, whether the grave is in a locked house or open land, and whether the taken item is the shroud or else. The reason: Grave robbing is not theft due to lack of security, as the dead do not secure themselves, and a grave is not a secure place. Ownership is doubtful, as the dead have no true ownership, nor do heirs, as the deceased’s needs for burial precede inheritance rights. As in Hidaya’s notes. Ibn Abbas’s saying: No amputation for a grave robber, narrated by Ibn Abi Shayba, supports this. Al-Zuhri said: Marwan was brought people robbing graves, beat and exiled them, with many Companions present. Abd al-Razzaq narrated it, adding: And paraded them. Abu Yusuf and al-Shafi‘i hold amputation is required, following Ibn al-Zubayr, who cut a grave robber, per Bukhari’s History. Umar did similarly, per Abd al-Razzaq. The hadith: Whoever robs a grave, we cut him, narrated raised by al-Bayhaqi, supports them. Hidaya’s denial of its being raised is baseless, as is dismissing the hadith: No amputation for a grave robber as insignificant. Abu Hanifa’s response to: Whoever robs a grave, we cut him: First, its chain includes an unknown narrator, so it is not considered. Second, it is understood as policy, supported by some narrations adding: Whoever drowns, we drown him. No hadith in this matter is narrated with a chain suitable for evidence on amputation or its absence. Companion disagreement hinges on whether grave robbing is theft. Those deeming it theft ruled for amputation; those seeing no theft due to lack of security or ownership ruled against it, except as policy. The truth likely aligns with this unless a hadith with a valid chain proves otherwise. The case of pickpocketing, taking another’s property while they are awake, present, and intent on guarding it by exploiting a moment of inattention, is also not theft, like grave robbing. Why then is a pickpocket’s hand cut but not a grave robber’s? Ibn Malik in Sharh al-Manar and other usulis explain: The theft verse implying amputation applies to secretive taking, but for pickpockets and grave robbers, we assess if secrecy adds or detracts. For pickpockets, secrecy enhances, as pickpocketing, though distinct, exceeds theft, taking openly with inattention. For grave robbers, secrecy detracts, as grave robbing is lesser than theft. Thus, amputation applies to pickpocketing but not grave robbing, as a ruling for the lesser extends to the greater, not vice versa. (As in Umdat al-Ri‘aya)

Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) narrated: No amputation for a grave robber. [Narrated by Ibn Abi Shayba]

In his narration from al-Zuhri: A grave robber was caught in Muawiya’s time, with Marwan governing Madinah. He consulted attending Companions and jurists, who agreed he should be beaten and paraded. Abd al-Razzaq narrated similarly. Ali al-Qari said: A house locked over a grave, literally or legally, does not make it secure. If something is taken from a house without a locked door or guard, there is no amputation by consensus.

(1) The statement: No amputation for a grave robber: Grave robbing is taking a corpse’s shroud after burial. No amputation for it is the view of Abu Hanifa and Muhammad, whether the grave is in a locked house or open land, and whether the taken item is the shroud or else. The reason: Grave robbing is not theft due to lack of security, as the dead do not secure themselves, and a grave is not a secure place. Ownership is doubtful, as the dead have no true ownership, nor do heirs, as the deceased’s needs for burial precede inheritance rights. As in Hidaya’s notes. Ibn Abbas’s saying: No amputation for a grave robber, narrated by Ibn Abi Shayba, supports this. Al-Zuhri said: Marwan was brought people robbing graves, beat and exiled them, with many Companions present. Abd al-Razzaq narrated it, adding: And paraded them. Abu Yusuf and al-Shafi‘i hold amputation is required, following Ibn al-Zubayr, who cut a grave robber, per Bukhari’s History. Umar did similarly, per Abd al-Razzaq. The hadith: Whoever robs a grave, we cut him, narrated raised by al-Bayhaqi, supports them. Hidaya’s denial of its being raised is baseless, as is dismissing the hadith: No amputation for a grave robber as insignificant. Abu Hanifa’s response to: Whoever robs a grave, we cut him: First, its chain includes an unknown narrator, so it is not considered. Second, it is understood as policy, supported by some narrations adding: Whoever drowns, we drown him. No hadith in this matter is narrated with a chain suitable for evidence on amputation or its absence. Companion disagreement hinges on whether grave robbing is theft. Those deeming it theft ruled for amputation; those seeing no theft due to lack of security or ownership ruled against it, except as policy. The truth likely aligns with this unless a hadith with a valid chain proves otherwise. The case of pickpocketing, taking another’s property while they are awake, present, and intent on guarding it by exploiting a moment of inattention, is also not theft, like grave robbing. Why then is a pickpocket’s hand cut but not a grave robber’s? Ibn Malik in Sharh al-Manar and other usulis explain: The theft verse implying amputation applies to secretive taking, but for pickpockets and grave robbers, we assess if secrecy adds or detracts. For pickpockets, secrecy enhances, as pickpocketing, though distinct, exceeds theft, taking openly with inattention. For grave robbers, secrecy detracts, as grave robbing is lesser than theft. Thus, amputation applies to pickpocketing but not grave robbing, as a ruling for the lesser extends to the greater, not vice versa. (As in Umdat al-Ri‘aya)