"There is no amputation for stealing a musical instrument or a prohibited item such as intoxicants"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Also, "there is no amputation for stealing a musical instrument". Why is that, even though it is property, it is not respected. What is a musical instrument like? Like the flute, the oud, the rabab, the violin, the kemancha, and the like. There are many things. And also the drum, the drum other than the hand drum. Okay. And the recorder and the radio?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : The recorder and the radio are not like that, because they are respected in reality. Because you can put a "zayn" on it and it becomes "zayn," and put a "shin" on it and it becomes "shin." But what is not used except for the prohibited, there is no amputation for stealing it. Okay. And is there a guarantee for it? There is no guarantee in it. So if you took it and broke it, we would say, may Allah reward you with good, and we would not hold you liable, nor would we blame you. Why? Because it is obligatory to destroy a musical instrument, and it is not permissible for its owner to keep it with him. Rather, it is obligatory for him to destroy it, and it is obligatory for whoever is able to change it with his hand to destroy it. If he cannot, then with his tongue. If he cannot, then with his heart. So if someone says, "This is a musical instrument, is it permissible for me to raid its owner, take it, and break it?" We do not say there is a detailed ruling. If you have authority, then yes. But if you do not have authority, do not do it, because that would cause a fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) greater than its remaining with you. You may be able to do it, or you may not be able to. He may defend himself and you may not be able to. But if you took it secretly and in stealth, in a way that he did not know, and broke it, then that is fine, and there is no sin on him, and there is no fitnah in it. For this reason, it is said, "There is no amputation for stealing a musical instrument," because it is not respected.
"Nor a prohibited item such as intoxicants" means that there is no amputation for stealing a prohibited item such as intoxicants. Why? Because it is not property, not even property that can be accumulated, so it is not respected. And it is not property either; there is no monetary value in it at all. Unlike a musical instrument, a musical instrument has monetary value because if it were changed from a musical instrument, it could be benefited from. But intoxicants, one can never benefit from them. Because even if it was fermented, is it permissible or not? It is not permissible unless it fermented by itself. So if he steals intoxicants, there is no amputation for him because it is not property. But how does one steal intoxicants without a container? Is it possible to steal intoxicants without a container? Yes, it is possible. One can enter a place of intoxicants, and may Allah protect us, with a container and fill this container from this intoxicant. Is that possible or not? Okay. So if he steals the intoxicants with its container, is he amputated or not? The school of thought says he is not amputated. The container is guaranteed, but the amputation does not apply. Why? Because the theft included a permissible and a prohibited element, and the side of prohibition prevails, which prevents amputation. But is it not possible to say that there is a detailed ruling in that? If his intention was the container, he is amputated, and if his intention was the intoxicants, he is not amputated. We can say this, and the evidence for that is that this man knows that he does not drink intoxicants, and from the moment he took it out, he poured it out. This tells us that he intended what? He intended the container. And on this basis, he is amputated. And likewise, if he poured out the intoxicants before taking it out of its place, and then went out with the container, he is amputated because he stole the container. Okay. If he steals these perfumes now that contain alcohol reaching the level of intoxication, is he amputated or not? If we say it is intoxicants, he is not amputated. And if we say it is not intoxicants, and that it is property that can be accumulated, bought, and sold, then he is amputated. And it returns to the opinion of the Sharia judge in that matter. The judge is the one who handles this matter, because there is disagreement among scholars in this issue.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : The recorder and the radio are not like that, because they are respected in reality. Because you can put a "zayn" on it and it becomes "zayn," and put a "shin" on it and it becomes "shin." But what is not used except for the prohibited, there is no amputation for stealing it. Okay. And is there a guarantee for it? There is no guarantee in it. So if you took it and broke it, we would say, may Allah reward you with good, and we would not hold you liable, nor would we blame you. Why? Because it is obligatory to destroy a musical instrument, and it is not permissible for its owner to keep it with him. Rather, it is obligatory for him to destroy it, and it is obligatory for whoever is able to change it with his hand to destroy it. If he cannot, then with his tongue. If he cannot, then with his heart. So if someone says, "This is a musical instrument, is it permissible for me to raid its owner, take it, and break it?" We do not say there is a detailed ruling. If you have authority, then yes. But if you do not have authority, do not do it, because that would cause a fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) greater than its remaining with you. You may be able to do it, or you may not be able to. He may defend himself and you may not be able to. But if you took it secretly and in stealth, in a way that he did not know, and broke it, then that is fine, and there is no sin on him, and there is no fitnah in it. For this reason, it is said, "There is no amputation for stealing a musical instrument," because it is not respected.
"Nor a prohibited item such as intoxicants" means that there is no amputation for stealing a prohibited item such as intoxicants. Why? Because it is not property, not even property that can be accumulated, so it is not respected. And it is not property either; there is no monetary value in it at all. Unlike a musical instrument, a musical instrument has monetary value because if it were changed from a musical instrument, it could be benefited from. But intoxicants, one can never benefit from them. Because even if it was fermented, is it permissible or not? It is not permissible unless it fermented by itself. So if he steals intoxicants, there is no amputation for him because it is not property. But how does one steal intoxicants without a container? Is it possible to steal intoxicants without a container? Yes, it is possible. One can enter a place of intoxicants, and may Allah protect us, with a container and fill this container from this intoxicant. Is that possible or not? Okay. So if he steals the intoxicants with its container, is he amputated or not? The school of thought says he is not amputated. The container is guaranteed, but the amputation does not apply. Why? Because the theft included a permissible and a prohibited element, and the side of prohibition prevails, which prevents amputation. But is it not possible to say that there is a detailed ruling in that? If his intention was the container, he is amputated, and if his intention was the intoxicants, he is not amputated. We can say this, and the evidence for that is that this man knows that he does not drink intoxicants, and from the moment he took it out, he poured it out. This tells us that he intended what? He intended the container. And on this basis, he is amputated. And likewise, if he poured out the intoxicants before taking it out of its place, and then went out with the container, he is amputated because he stole the container. Okay. If he steals these perfumes now that contain alcohol reaching the level of intoxication, is he amputated or not? If we say it is intoxicants, he is not amputated. And if we say it is not intoxicants, and that it is property that can be accumulated, bought, and sold, then he is amputated. And it returns to the opinion of the Sharia judge in that matter. The judge is the one who handles this matter, because there is disagreement among scholars in this issue.