"And neither of the spouses is to be amputated for stealing from the other's wealth, even if it was secured from him"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : All right, the author (may Allah have mercy on him) said "And neither of the spouses is to be amputated for stealing from the other's wealth, even if it was secured from him". The husband is not to be amputated for stealing from his wife's wealth, and the wife is not to be amputated for stealing from her husband's wealth. As for the second case, which is the wife stealing from her husband's wealth, there is a plausible reason (shubhah), which is the obligation of financial maintenance (nafaqah) for her upon the husband. The husband may be negligent in fulfilling this, which could lead her to steal from his wealth, breaking open the box and taking from it. However, if the box is open, she is permitted to take based on the ruling of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) regarding Hind, the wife of Abu Sufyan. But if it is secured, there is a plausible reason because he may be negligent toward her. As for the husband stealing from his wife's wealth, what is the plausible reason? They said the plausible reason is that the husband is the maintainer (qawwam) of the woman and has authority over her, so he may think that due to this authority, he has the right to raid her wealth, what? He takes from it, or because the husband, with his wife, generally takes liberties with her wealth just as she takes liberties with his. This is if it is not secured from him, so the reasoning has a basis. But if it is secured, and the woman is cautious and has placed her wealth in boxes out of fear of the husband, is he to be amputated or not? The author says "even if it was secured from him". According to the author's opinion, he is not to be amputated. But the correct view is that if the husband steals from his wife's secured wealth, he is to be amputated. But tell me, is it possible for the wife to demand the amputation of her husband's hand if he steals from her wealth?
The questioner : It is possible.
The Shaykh : If the matters between them are pleasant, then no. If it were said, "Let us take him to the judge to have his hand amputated," she would say, "Never, amputate my hand and do not amputate his." But if the matters are not pleasant, she would say, "I was waiting for this to happen, amputate his hand," is that not so?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : All right, so the correct view is that if the husband steals from his wife's wealth that is secured from him, he is to be amputated, because as long as the woman secured it from him, it means she does not want him to take anything from it.
And the author's statement "even if it was secured from him" is an indication of disagreement, because it is the norm that when scholars use such an expression, they are indicating a disagreement in the issue. Some of them said, but it is not consistent. They said if they say "even if," the disagreement is strong. If they say "if" or "if it is such and such," the disagreement is moderate. And if they say "even," the disagreement is weak. But this rule is not consistent.
The questioner : It is possible.
The Shaykh : If the matters between them are pleasant, then no. If it were said, "Let us take him to the judge to have his hand amputated," she would say, "Never, amputate my hand and do not amputate his." But if the matters are not pleasant, she would say, "I was waiting for this to happen, amputate his hand," is that not so?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : All right, so the correct view is that if the husband steals from his wife's wealth that is secured from him, he is to be amputated, because as long as the woman secured it from him, it means she does not want him to take anything from it.
And the author's statement "even if it was secured from him" is an indication of disagreement, because it is the norm that when scholars use such an expression, they are indicating a disagreement in the issue. Some of them said, but it is not consistent. They said if they say "even if," the disagreement is strong. If they say "if" or "if it is such and such," the disagreement is moderate. And if they say "even," the disagreement is weak. But this rule is not consistent.