Continuation of the explanation of the author's statement: "or a free Muslim from the public treasury"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Every Muslim is entitled to a share of that. So now, you have committed betrayal, but whether it is theft or the betrayal of a specific individual, it is possible that you will be absolved of it one day and be safe. Now, the understanding of the author's statement "a free Muslim from the public treasury" is that if a disbeliever steals from the public treasury, is he to be amputated or not? Yes, because he has no right to the wealth of the Muslims' public treasury. If a Muslim slave steals from the public treasury, the apparent meaning of the author's words is that he is to be amputated.
The questioner : The hand is not cut off.
The Shaykh : He is to be amputated because he said "a free Muslim". This is a Muslim slave who stole from the public treasury, so the apparent meaning of the author's words is that he is to be amputated. However, we will find at the end of the phrase that the implication of what is in the end of the phrase is that he is not to be amputated, because a slave who steals from wealth from which his master is not amputated—if a Muslim slave steals from a Muslim and steals from the public treasury, he is not to be amputated, because he stole from wealth from which, if his master had stolen, he would not have been amputated. Now, the author says, yes? Is it time for questions?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : The hand is not cut off.
The Shaykh : He is to be amputated because he said "a free Muslim". This is a Muslim slave who stole from the public treasury, so the apparent meaning of the author's words is that he is to be amputated. However, we will find at the end of the phrase that the implication of what is in the end of the phrase is that he is not to be amputated, because a slave who steals from wealth from which his master is not amputated—if a Muslim slave steals from a Muslim and steals from the public treasury, he is not to be amputated, because he stole from wealth from which, if his master had stolen, he would not have been amputated. Now, the author says, yes? Is it time for questions?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes?