And its value is assessed at the time it is taken out of the secure place. So if he slaughtered a sheep in it or tore a garment in it, and its value fell below the nisab, and then he took it out, or if he destroyed the property in it, he would not be amputated.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then the author (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "And its value is assessed at the time it is taken out of the secure place". Its value, meaning the value of the stolen item, is assessed at the time it is taken out of the secure place, provided it reaches the nisab. Pay attention to this condition he mentioned: "So if he slaughtered a sheep in it or tore a garment in it, and its value fell below the nisab, and then he took it out, or if he destroyed the property in it, he would not be amputated". The value, which is the nisab, is required at the time of removal, not at the time of the theft. So if a man entered a sheepfold and wanted to steal a sheep, and he said to himself, "If I take it out alive, it will reach the nisab, but if I slaughter it, it will not reach the nisab, so I will slaughter it now and take it out slaughtered," would he be amputated? No, he would not be amputated. Why? Because he reduced the value of this item before taking it out of its secure place. It is as if a man entered a house where there was money and he ruined this money and left the house. Would he be amputated? No, but he is considered to have destroyed the money, so he is liable to compensate for it according to what the liability requires. Similarly, if a man entered a store where there were clothes, he breached the security of the store, and there were clothes in it, and he said, "If I take out the garment sewn and intact, its value will reach the nisab, so I will be amputated for it, but if I tear it before taking it out, its value will decrease, so it will go," and he tore it and then went out wearing it, would he be amputated? No, because he destroyed this item before taking it out. It is as if he ate food in his owner's place or burned the garment or did something similar. He is only liable for the guarantee of usurpation.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It is a trick, but a trick that drops the amputation, because one of its conditions is that it must have reached the nisab before the removal, just as if he destroyed it. If it were assumed that this man destroyed it, he would not be amputated. He (may Allah have mercy on him) says: "Or if he tore a garment in it, and its value fell below the nisab, and then he took it out"
The questioner : Unanimously?
The Shaykh : No, it is not far-fetched that there might be a difference of opinion. If it is a trick, it is not far-fetched that there might be a difference of opinion. But those who say that the amputation is dropped say that this man destroyed the monetary value of this stolen money before he took it out, while it was still in the ownership of its owner.
"Or if he destroyed the property in it". How did he destroy the property in it? It means that he destroyed the money in the secure place itself. In that case, he would not be amputated. What is an example? For example, a man entered a library where there were books, and he burned these books, and their value is high. If he had stolen one of these books, his hand would have been amputated. But he did not steal; rather, he destroyed the property. So we say in this case that he would not be amputated, but he is liable to compensate for the money and is to be punished with a discretionary punishment as the imam sees fit, because this is a sin.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It is a trick, but a trick that drops the amputation, because one of its conditions is that it must have reached the nisab before the removal, just as if he destroyed it. If it were assumed that this man destroyed it, he would not be amputated. He (may Allah have mercy on him) says: "Or if he tore a garment in it, and its value fell below the nisab, and then he took it out"
The questioner : Unanimously?
The Shaykh : No, it is not far-fetched that there might be a difference of opinion. If it is a trick, it is not far-fetched that there might be a difference of opinion. But those who say that the amputation is dropped say that this man destroyed the monetary value of this stolen money before he took it out, while it was still in the ownership of its owner.
"Or if he destroyed the property in it". How did he destroy the property in it? It means that he destroyed the money in the secure place itself. In that case, he would not be amputated. What is an example? For example, a man entered a library where there were books, and he burned these books, and their value is high. If he had stolen one of these books, his hand would have been amputated. But he did not steal; rather, he destroyed the property. So we say in this case that he would not be amputated, but he is liable to compensate for the money and is to be punished with a discretionary punishment as the imam sees fit, because this is a sin.