"There is no amputation for the one who seizes, the one who snatches, the one who usurps, or the one who betrays a trust or a loan or anything else."

The Shaykh : He said "There is no amputation for the one who seizes or the one who snatches". The one who seizes is the one who takes money as a spoil, relying on his strength, for example... on the sidewalk... a strong man comes... yes, we call this a seizer. Or, for example, he says to you, "What Allah willed, this watch is nice, where did you find it?" You say, "I found it from such and such." He says, "Show it to me." When you give it to him, he says, "Do you have a watch?" This is also a seizer because he took the thing openly, relying on his strength. As for the one who snatches, he is the one who takes it by a quick grab while he is walking and running. So this one takes it openly, relying on what?

The questioner : Speed.

The Shaykh : On his escape and speed, you can no longer catch him, like... you might be able to catch him. We say this one also does not have amputation, because this is not theft. The name "theft" indicates that a person takes something in a hidden manner. Likewise, if he stops at a shop and says to the shopkeeper, "Do you have such and such?" and sees that the one in front of him has nothing of what he wants, he says, "Do you have such and such?" He says, "Yes." He says, "Where is it? I don't see it." He says, "In the back of the shop." He says... from inside, meaning when he went inside, he took whatever he pleased from inside the place and left. What is this? This is not theft, because this item was visible and not secured. It is obligatory for you, the shopkeeper, to be alert. If he says, "I will bring it out from the shop," and you fear for it, let him come in but do not let him get out of your sight for a moment, lest he take what he wants.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : ... All right. "Nor the one who snatches, nor the one who usurps". The one who usurps is the one who takes money by force without right. This one does not have amputation because he is not a thief. An example is a man who usurped my land and planted in it and built. We do not amputate him. Why? Because he is an usurper, not... "Nor the one who betrays a trust or a loan". The betrayer is the one who betrays you in a place of trust. This betrayer—is this a description of deficiency or praise?

The questioner : Deficiency.

The Shaykh : Deficiency in every case. Betrayal is never a description of praise. The betrayer is the one who betrays you in a place of trust. He said "In a trust or a loan". A trust (wadi'ah) is the safekeeping of another's money. This... and the money with him is called a trust. So the safekeeping of another's money is called entrusting, and the money kept safe is called a trust. An example is that you give a man a book and say, "Take this, may Allah reward you with good." This is a trust from you for a period of one month. When the month passed and I came to him to ask for it, he said, "I have nothing for you, and I do not know you." What is this? Betrayal or not? This is betrayal in a trust. This one is not amputated because he did not take the money in a hidden manner. Likewise, the betrayer in a loan (ariyah). A loan is money given to another to benefit from it and return it. For example, you give him this book and say, "Benefit from it, refer to it for one month, for one week, for one year." We call this a loan. When I gave it to him and came to ask for it after the period ended, he said, "I have nothing for you." Is this a betrayer or a trustworthy person? A betrayer. So he is not amputated because that is not theft. And the author's saying "Nor the one who betrays a trust or a loan or anything else". "Or anything else" means other than a loan, such as betraying in something you hired. For example, he hired a car from me and betrayed it, either by taking something from it that he needs for his car or something similar. This is not theft, so he is not amputated. And the author's saying "Or a loan". This is what he (may Allah have mercy on him) followed, and it is the opinion of the majority of scholars that the one who betrays a loan is not amputated. But the madhhab (school of jurisprudence) is contrary to what the author followed. The madhhab is that the one who betrays a loan is amputated. They argued with the hadith of the woman from the Khazraj tribe, who used to borrow goods and deny them, so the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered the amputation of her hand. And betrayal in a loan is not like betrayal in a trust, because a trust... because the difference between them is clear. And because if we amputate the one who denies a loan, people will refrain from denying it. And if we do not amputate him, people will be bold in denying it. And in this is blocking the door of lending... people do not lend as long as a person fears for his money from denial. He does not lend after this. And the correct opinion is that the one who denies a loan is amputated. But how is that? You lent a person a book to read, then he denied it, so you established evidence against him that it is with him. Now it is clear that the loan is established and its denial is established. So at that time, amputation becomes necessary... How did the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) amputate her hand while respecting her? Because the original state of a human being is that he is respected. Or, Ya Fahd?

The questioner : Unlike a trust.

The Shaykh : Unlike a trust, because it is for the benefit of the owner. And the third matter is also that it blocks the door of kindness, or not? Because the lender is a doer of good. So if the lender denies and his right is not taken except by guarantee only, then people may refrain from lending. And for this reason, lending is obligatory in some cases. And this leads to not fulfilling this obligation. Then we also say that it is a category in itself. Suppose it does not fall under theft linguistically. As long as there is a text in it, what is our position before Allah (Mighty and Majestic) if it is the Day of Resurrection? What is our position? And the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) amputated for it and said . And a person does not look at his legal rulings and in his fatwas or in what he says. He must first look at how he will face Allah (Mighty and Majestic) with what he said, before everything, because you are accountable. So the mufti and the judge are conveyors of the messages of Allah (Mighty and Majestic), by the saying of the Messenger . You must consider yourself accountable before Allah (Mighty and Majestic) in everything you judge. You must observe the question of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) before anyone else in the ruling of amputation. So we must implement it. And for this reason, the famous opinion of the madhhab of Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) is that it is amputated, contrary to what the author followed, and this is the correct opinion. And for this reason, Imam Ahmad says, "I do not know anything that repels it." What do I say?!