Explanation of the Book of Inheritance, Fixed Punishments, and Blood Money-06a

The reciter: Musa ibn Isma'il narrated to us, 'Abd al-Wahhab narrated to us, al-A'mash narrated to us, saying: I heard Abu Salih say: I heard Abu Hurayrah say: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: .

The Shaykh : In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. In this chapter, the author says: The chapter of the saying of Allah the Exalted: . "Their hands" is plural, and it is pluralized because of its connection to what implies plurality; otherwise, the intended meaning is their two hands.
He began with the thief, and in the chapter on adultery, with the female adulterer, because it is the norm that encroachment on wealth comes from men, and violation of honor comes from women, where prostitutes are numerous. So Allah the Exalted said in Surat al-Nur: , and here He said: , so He began with men.
Here, the grammarians mentioned that "the thief and the female thief, so cut off their hands" is not from the category of *ishtighal* (occupation of the verb with an object), and that the meaning is: "Among what is recited to you is the ruling for the thief and the female thief," and that the second sentence is separate from what precedes it.
And his saying: did not clarify in this recitation what is meant by "hand," but there is another non-canonical recitation: "So cut off their right hands," so the one who is cut off is the right hand.
From where is it cut? He said: "And it was cut from me from the palm", the joint of the palm from the forearm, this one, because the hand, when used in a general sense, does not include what exceeds the palm. For this reason, when Allah the Exalted said in the verse of dry ablution: , the wiping in dry ablution was only on the palm. And when Allah the Exalted intended what exceeds it in ablution, He said: . So the hand, when used in a general sense, does not exceed the palm.
It was specified as the right hand because the right hand is generally the tool for taking and giving, except for the left-handed person, who takes and gives with the left hand.
Then he mentioned the report of Qatadah that a woman stole and her left hand was cut off: "That is all". Her left hand was cut off by mistake; that is all, meaning the right hand is not cut off again, because that would be injustice to her. So if we assume that the one who cuts makes a mistake and cuts the left hand, then the right hand is not cut off, and it is said that this is what Allah the Mighty and Majestic intended.
Then he mentioned in what amount is it cut? He mentioned that it is cut for a quarter of a dinar, and the dinar is a mithqal of gold. Based on this, the threshold for theft for which the hand is cut is: how much? A quarter of a mithqal.
He also mentioned that it is cut for a *mujn* (shield), , and in one wording: its value. And what is considered, the value or the price? The value is considered, not the price.
The difference between value and price is that the price is what the contract was concluded upon, while the value is what people have agreed upon by custom. So the price is from the contracting parties, and the value follows the desire of people in general. So the price is the desire of the contracting parties, and the value is the desire of the general public.
The value of a thing in the market might be ten, and he sells it to his companion for five. Which one is the price?
The five is the price, and the ten is the value.
So if someone asks: Which of the two narrations do we prioritize?
We say: There is no contradiction between them, because the price that was the price of the shield, the price was in accordance with the value. So whoever said "price" is considering what the contract was concluded upon, and whoever said "its value" is considering its value among the general public, and there is no conflict between them.
Then the author followed these hadiths with the hadith: . And we mentioned yesterday the tracing of this hadith at...
Some of them said that it indicates that the hand is cut for any small or large amount of theft, but this is weak.
Some of them said that this is from the category of blocking the means (*sadd al-dhara'i'*), meaning that the thief steals an egg and a rope, then gradually progresses until he steals what warrants the cutting of the hand.
Some of them said that the egg meant is the egg of the weapon that is placed on the head, and it is worth three dirhams or more, and the rope, what is it? The ropes of ships that are tied with it, and they are of low value.
This last interpretation and the one before it are necessary, because the previous hadiths are explicit that there is no cutting for less than a quarter of a dinar.
Now, if the quarter of a dinar differs from the three dirhams, and the quarter of a dinar becomes equal to ten dirhams, what do we prioritize?
Yes, the quarter of a dinar is the basis. So if it is assumed that the quarter of a dinar is equal to ten dirhams, the consideration is the quarter of a dinar. Or if it is the opposite, and the quarter of a dinar does not equal three dirhams, the consideration is the quarter of a dinar.
Now, if someone asks: Why do we not follow the more cautious approach and say that if the value of gold decreases, we consider the dirhams, and vice versa?
If this were said, it would have a point, but the known stronger position is that the basis is gold, and that the *mujn* happened to have a value of three dirhams, and that these dirhams equal a quarter of a dinar.

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : He asks, saying: Is it possible, if we cut off his hand, to reattach it a second time?
We say: No, it is not permissible, because the intent of the Lawgiver in that is its destruction. But should we anesthetize it when cutting it so that he does not feel pain?
Yes, because the destruction occurs without pain.
And if this were retaliation (*qisas*), should we anesthetize it?
No, rather, we do not anesthetize the one who cuts, in order for him to experience the same amount of pain that the victim experienced. Is that clear? Yes.