What is the ruling on one who steals a free child wearing jewelry? We said he is not to be amputated because a factor permitting the act and a factor requiring it are present in the same case, just as with one who steals wine in a vessel.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, because in our view, jewelry is a cause for amputation, whereas a free person is not subject to amputation. Thus, this theft is considered a single, unified theft containing both what warrants amputation and what does not.
The questioner : What if he steals wine and takes money?
The Shaykh : What did he take?
The questioner : Wine and money.
The Shaykh : No, there is a difference between them, because the money has no connection to the wine. This is why we said that the wine vessel is not subject to amputation, even if it is worth a great deal. However, if he takes your coins, the coins have no connection to the wine or the jewelry on the child. Therefore, if he steals jewelry separate from the child and also steals the child, we would mandate amputation.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : We hold the view that he should be amputated, but according to the school of thought, the position I see is that the thief of a child wearing jewelry is to be amputated, because in reality, he did not intend anything but the jewelry; he does not intend to sell the girl.
The Shaykh : Yes, because in our view, jewelry is a cause for amputation, whereas a free person is not subject to amputation. Thus, this theft is considered a single, unified theft containing both what warrants amputation and what does not.
The questioner : What if he steals wine and takes money?
The Shaykh : What did he take?
The questioner : Wine and money.
The Shaykh : No, there is a difference between them, because the money has no connection to the wine. This is why we said that the wine vessel is not subject to amputation, even if it is worth a great deal. However, if he takes your coins, the coins have no connection to the wine or the jewelry on the child. Therefore, if he steals jewelry separate from the child and also steals the child, we would mandate amputation.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : We hold the view that he should be amputated, but according to the school of thought, the position I see is that the thief of a child wearing jewelry is to be amputated, because in reality, he did not intend anything but the jewelry; he does not intend to sell the girl.