And that doubt be removed, so that the hand is not cut off for stealing from the property of his father, however high up the lineage, nor from the property of his son, however low down the lineage, and the father and mother are equal in this, and the brother and every

The Shaykh : He said "And that doubt be removed" This is the fourth condition, and it is a condition for all hudud (fixed punishments). It is a condition for all hudud that doubt must be removed. We mentioned its evidence previously, and it is We said that there is discussion regarding this hadith, but its meaning is correct, because the original state of honor and bodies is that they are protected and safeguarded. They cannot be violated except with certainty. The hand of the thief cannot be cut off except with certainty. So if there is doubt, there is no cutting off. Doubt is of three or four types, as will become clear: either doubt of ownership, doubt of possession, doubt of access, or doubt of spending. Let us look at them. He said, "So that the hand is not cut off for stealing from the property of his father." This means if someone steals from the property of his father, he is not cut off. Why? Because there is doubt. Is it doubt of ownership or possession? No, because the son does not possess the property of his father. But it is doubt of spending and doubt of access. Access to his wealth, which we call in colloquial language "generosity" or "being provided for." He provides for him, yes, and it is not considered wrong to take something from his wealth. So if the son steals from the property of his father, even if the property is secured behind tight locks, he is not cut off. The reason? The presence of doubt. Okay, he said "Nor from the property of his father, however high up the lineage" Even from his grandfather?

The questioner : Yes

The Shaykh : Even from his maternal grandfather?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Even from his maternal grandfather. Okay, and from his mother? And from his mother. That is why he said later, "And the father and mother are equal." Even from his mother. The doubt regarding the mother is not spending, but access. That he has access to her wealth and provides for her, and he says, "This is my mother; I and she are one." Okay, "Nor for stealing from the property of his son, however low down the lineage" The hand is not cut off for stealing from the property of his son. Who steals from the property of the son? The father and the mother. So if the father steals from the property of his son, he is not cut off. The doubt here is very strong. What is it? Possession, spending, and access as well. Because a person says, "This is my son's property; I and my son are equal." So the hand is not cut off for stealing from the property of a son. Likewise, the mother is not cut off for stealing from the property of her son. The summary now: The ancestors and descendants are not cut off for stealing from each other's property. Is this the rule for ancestors and descendants, or not? Who are the ancestors? The father, however high up, and the mother, however high up. And the descendants: the son, however low down, and the daughter, however low down. They are not cut off for stealing from each other's property. This is what the author (may Allah have mercy on him) held. There are other opinions in this issue, which we will mention later, if Allah wills. He says, "And the brother and every relative is cut off." The father and mother are equal in this, as we said, regarding ancestors and descendants. He said "And the brother is cut off" Meaning, a full brother, a brother on the father's side, or a brother on the mother's side. The brother and every relative is cut off for stealing from the property of his relative. The brother is cut off for stealing from the property of his brother. If he says, "I am generous to you, my brother. I came and broke open the box and took the money because I am generous to you; there is no accounting between us." We say, there is no accounting between you and... the box is not yours unless it is outside your accounting. And on this basis, he is cut off. Okay, the paternal uncle? He is cut off. Okay, the brother's son? He is cut off. That is why he used the general phrase, "Every relative for stealing from the property of his relative." So kinship does not prevent cutting off except in what? Only in ancestors and descendants. Okay, all kinships do not prevent cutting off except in ancestors and descendants only. This is the well-known position of the Hanbali school (may Allah have mercy on them). Some scholars said that every relative is cut off for stealing from a relative, except the father alone. The father alone. This scholar argued with the generality of the evidence indicating the obligation of cutting off, and said that every property, with respect to one who does not own it, is respected and it is not permissible to violate it. As for the father, he is not cut off due to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) This is one of the opinions in the madhhab of the Imam, and I think it is also the madhhab of al-Shafi'i. Some scholars held that no one with a prohibited kinship (mahram) is cut off for stealing from the property of their kin. And on this opinion, is the brother cut off or not? Not cut off. The brother's son?

The questioner : The hand is not cut off.

The Shaykh : The paternal uncle?

The questioner : The hand is not cut off.

The Shaykh : The paternal uncle's son?

The questioner : The hand is not cut off.

The Shaykh : No, that is not the case. The paternal uncle's son is cut off because he is not a mahram (one with whom marriage is prohibited). This is the broadest of the madhahib regarding the issue of relatives. So the madhahib regarding kinship are three:
The first opinion: That stealing from ancestors or descendants does not involve cutting off.
The second: That stealing from all relatives involves cutting off, except the father from the property of his son.
The third opinion: Stealing from the property of relatives involves cutting off, except for one who has a prohibited kinship (mahram). Meaning, a person is cut off for stealing from the property of a relative unless there is a mahram relationship between them. Meaning, if one of them were male, the other could not marry him. If one were male and the other female, marriage between them would not be valid.

The questioner : Its text?

The Shaykh : This is its text.

The questioner : The text of the third opinion?

The Shaykh : That he is cut off for stealing from every relative except those between whom there is a mahram kinship. Or "mahram kinship" is also acceptable. Do you understand now? And if we return to the general texts, we find that the closest of the opinions is the second one, which prevents cutting off for the father, and everything else is cut off. But nevertheless, I have some difficulty with this issue because of His saying, the Exalted, the verse. It mentions all these people: "There is no blame on you for eating from your houses." This indicates that we have access to the houses of these people. However, it is said that the noble verse, "There is no blame on you for eating from these houses," applies when we enter them. But if they are locked against us, they are respected and secured, and violating them, the original ruling is cutting off.