What is the difference between the one who embezzles, the thief, and the one who snatches?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Well, what is the difference, O Shaykh, between the one who embezzles, the one who snatches, and the thief?
The Shaykh : Is your question legal or linguistic?
The questioner : It is legal, and it relates to the amputation of the hand, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : For the one who snatches and the one who embezzles, there is no amputation.
The questioner : Yes, that is correct. Well, the money might naturally be more than a quarter of a dinar, and so on, but it is still called snatching in this case.
The Shaykh : You got the answer.
The questioner : Yes, O Shaykh. Do you think we can imagine a case where the one who embezzles, who takes money and extorts, for example, in secret, where there is no clear legal image that makes him close to the amputation of the hand or something like that?
The Shaykh: No.
The questioner : Regardless of the amount?
Another questioner : ... on the same tape, distinguishing between them.
The Shaykh : How?
Another questioner : So that we can benefit from it on the same tape. Distinguishing between them.
The Shaykh : Theft is when one raids shops and houses while people are unaware. If he steals something worth more than a quarter of a dinar, his hand is amputated. As for the one who snatches, he is the one who finds the owner of the place or house with the door open, runs over, snatches something with his hand, and flees. This is the one who snatches. The one who embezzles is like government employees, and this happens a lot, praise be to Allah, in these days. Yes, a safe box, but it is not safe. He carries the box with what is in it and flees. This is the one who embezzles. Another image is possible: he submits forged accounts, takes something and does not record it, or records something and does not record something else, and so on. This is called the one who embezzles. For both of these, the hadd of theft is not established against them. But that does not mean he is innocent before the Muslim ruler. No, he may be flogged with a disciplinary flogging, he may be imprisoned, and so on. However, the hadd of theft is not established against him.
The questioner : We benefited from this, O our Shaykh. Is this interpretation from the language?
The Shaykh : No, it is from the language and the hadith. That is why I asked you: is your question legal or linguistic?
The Shaykh : Is your question legal or linguistic?
The questioner : It is legal, and it relates to the amputation of the hand, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : For the one who snatches and the one who embezzles, there is no amputation.
The questioner : Yes, that is correct. Well, the money might naturally be more than a quarter of a dinar, and so on, but it is still called snatching in this case.
The Shaykh : You got the answer.
The questioner : Yes, O Shaykh. Do you think we can imagine a case where the one who embezzles, who takes money and extorts, for example, in secret, where there is no clear legal image that makes him close to the amputation of the hand or something like that?
The Shaykh: No.
The questioner : Regardless of the amount?
Another questioner : ... on the same tape, distinguishing between them.
The Shaykh : How?
Another questioner : So that we can benefit from it on the same tape. Distinguishing between them.
The Shaykh : Theft is when one raids shops and houses while people are unaware. If he steals something worth more than a quarter of a dinar, his hand is amputated. As for the one who snatches, he is the one who finds the owner of the place or house with the door open, runs over, snatches something with his hand, and flees. This is the one who snatches. The one who embezzles is like government employees, and this happens a lot, praise be to Allah, in these days. Yes, a safe box, but it is not safe. He carries the box with what is in it and flees. This is the one who embezzles. Another image is possible: he submits forged accounts, takes something and does not record it, or records something and does not record something else, and so on. This is called the one who embezzles. For both of these, the hadd of theft is not established against them. But that does not mean he is innocent before the Muslim ruler. No, he may be flogged with a disciplinary flogging, he may be imprisoned, and so on. However, the hadd of theft is not established against him.
The questioner : We benefited from this, O our Shaykh. Is this interpretation from the language?
The Shaykh : No, it is from the language and the hadith. That is why I asked you: is your question legal or linguistic?
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.