Or from war spoils that have not had the khums taken from them, or a poor person from the produce of an endowment for the poor, or a person from property in which he or one of those from whom amputation is not carried out for theft has a share, from whom amputation is not carried out
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"Or from war spoils that have not had the khums taken from them" If someone steals from war spoils that have not had the khums taken from them, he is not amputated. Why? Because he has a right in the fifth of the fifth. What is the fifth of the fifth? One out of twenty-five. So he has a right in this one out of twenty-five. Because war spoils, which is the wealth taken from the disbelievers by fighting and what is attached to it, this war spoils is divided into five shares: four for the spoils-takers and one which is also divided into five shares: a fifth for the public treasury, a fifth for close relatives, a fifth for orphans, a fifth for the poor, and a fifth for the wayfarer. [Al-Anfal 8:41] So if someone steals from war spoils that have not had the khums taken from them, he is not amputated. Why? Give the reason?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Because he has a semblance of entitlement. He is entitled to what? The fifth of the fifth which is distributed in the fay, which is what belongs to Allah and His Messenger. If the war spoils have had the khums taken from them, and he steals from the four-fifths belonging to the spoils-takers, and he is not one of them, he is amputated because he has no right in it, no entitlement, and no semblance. And if he steals from the fifth which is distributed to the five categories, what happens?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : He is not amputated. And if the fifth is distributed to its five owners and he steals from a share in which he has no right, he is amputated. Is this understood or not?
The questioner : Understood.
The Shaykh : Okay, if he steals after its division, after the khums has been taken, he steals from the four-fifths for the fighters. Is he amputated or not? If he is one of them, he is not amputated. Why?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Because he has a right in the four-fifths. And if he is not one of them, he is amputated. We are done with this. If he steals from the fifth distributed among five, we look: if he steals from what he has no right in, meaning as if we took the fifth of the fifth, we took the fifth of the fifth now, and he steals from what he has no right in, he is amputated. For example, we take the fifth of the fifth and take what belongs to Allah and His Messenger, the fay, and the orphans, we make it separate, and the close relatives separate, and the wayfarer separate, and the fourth?
The questioner : The poor.
The Shaykh : The poor. He stole from the right of the orphans, and he is an adult of sound mind. Is he amputated or not?
The questioner : He is amputated.
The Shaykh : Why?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : He has no semblance in it. He stole from the fay which belongs to Allah and His Messenger, right? Is he amputated or not?
The questioner : The hand is not cut off.
The Shaykh : He is not amputated because he has a right in it because it is distributed to the public treasury. He stole from the share of the close relatives, and he is not one of the close relatives.
The questioner : He is amputated.
The Shaykh : He is amputated. We are done, we understood now completely. Who steals from the war spoils? Question: Who steals from it before the khums is taken?
The questioner : The hand is not cut off.
The Shaykh : He is not amputated. Who steals from it after the khums is taken, from the share of the fighters?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : There is a detail. If he is one of them, he is not amputated. If he is not one of them, he is amputated. If he steals from the fifth which will be distributed into five shares, if the khums has been taken and he steals from what he has no right in, he is amputated. And if the khums has not been taken, or he steals from what he has a right in, he is not amputated. Okay, so the author's statement "not had the khums taken" has details in its implication. The author says "or a poor person from the produce of an endowment for the poor", he is not amputated. Our example: there are date palms endowed for the poor. We cut the dates and put the cut dates in a storage place. A man from the poor comes and steals from it. Is he amputated or not?
The questioner : No, he is not amputated.
The Shaykh : Why?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Because he has a semblance of entitlement. He is among the entitled persons, so he is not amputated. Okay, there is food prepared for the poor, charities prepared for the poor, and a poor man comes and steals from it.
The questioner : He is amputated.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : The hand is not cut off.
The Shaykh : Why?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Because he has a semblance of entitlement in it. Okay, the author (may Allah have mercy on him) says "or a person", meaning or a person steals "from property in which he has a share", he is not amputated because the one who stole has a portion in it. For example, a person has property shared with another, say one hundred dirhams, and he steals fifty dirhams from this shared property. Is he amputated?
The questioner : The hand is not cut off.
The Shaykh : Why?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Because he has from the fifty?
The questioner : Half of it.
The Shaykh : Half of it, twenty-five. Okay, a man has a share in property amounting to one out of a million, and he steals nine hundred thousand from this property.
The questioner : The hand is not cut off.
The questioner : He is amputated.
The Shaykh : ... , you see he has only one out of the million, and he stole nine hundred only.
The questioner : The hand is not cut off.
The Shaykh : He is not amputated. Why? Because his share is undivided. Every dirham is divided by a million, and he has one from it, right? So when his share is undivided, whatever he steals from the shared property, he is not amputated because he has a portion in every part of it, however small, right? Okay, he says "or one of those from whom amputation is not carried out for theft". If a person steals from something in which one of those from whom amputation is not carried out for theft has a share, he is not amputated. If you steal from your father's property, are you amputated?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : You are not amputated. Your father has property shared between him and your uncle, and you steal from the shared property?
The questioner : The hand is not cut off.
The Shaykh : You are not amputated?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, there is property belonging to your uncle alone, separate from the share, and you steal from it.
The questioner : You are amputated.
The Shaykh : You are amputated? Okay, why were you not amputated in the first case?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Because your father has a share in this property. And if you steal from property in which one from whom amputation is not carried out for theft has a share, right? Then you are not amputated. What is the semblance? The partnership. So as long as this property has a share, even one out of a million, for a person from whose property I would not amputate if stolen, then I do not amputate for theft from this shared property, as the author said.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, he has nothing from it.
The questioner : Meaning during his father's lifetime?
The Shaykh : Yes, during his father's lifetime. If it is after his father's death, he has a share too. He himself has a share, but during his father's lifetime, if he steals from his father's property, is he amputated?
The questioner : He is not amputated.
The Shaykh : Okay, he stole from property shared between his father and another man?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, it is not a problem. He is not amputated. Why? Because this property that you stole from has a part in which you are not amputated for theft, which is what your father owns. And if there is a part in which you cannot be amputated, then amputation cannot be divided. Okay, if it is shared, your father has two-fifths and your uncle has three-fifths, are you amputated or not?
The questioner : The hand is not cut off.
The Shaykh : No, we amputate three fingers. Is that possible?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It is not possible to divide it. Okay, he says "amputation is not carried out".
And know that anything you obtain of war booty - then indeed, for Allah is one fifth of it and for the Messenger and for [his] near relatives and the orphans, the needy, and the [stranded] traveler
وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّما غَنِمْتُمْ مِنْ شَيْءٍ فَأَنَّ لِلَّهِ خُمُسَهُ وَلِلرَّسُولِ وَلِذِي الْقُرْبى وَالْيَتامى وَالْمَساكِينِ وَابْنِ السَّبِيلِThe questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Because he has a semblance of entitlement. He is entitled to what? The fifth of the fifth which is distributed in the fay, which is what belongs to Allah and His Messenger. If the war spoils have had the khums taken from them, and he steals from the four-fifths belonging to the spoils-takers, and he is not one of them, he is amputated because he has no right in it, no entitlement, and no semblance. And if he steals from the fifth which is distributed to the five categories, what happens?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : He is not amputated. And if the fifth is distributed to its five owners and he steals from a share in which he has no right, he is amputated. Is this understood or not?
The questioner : Understood.
The Shaykh : Okay, if he steals after its division, after the khums has been taken, he steals from the four-fifths for the fighters. Is he amputated or not? If he is one of them, he is not amputated. Why?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Because he has a right in the four-fifths. And if he is not one of them, he is amputated. We are done with this. If he steals from the fifth distributed among five, we look: if he steals from what he has no right in, meaning as if we took the fifth of the fifth, we took the fifth of the fifth now, and he steals from what he has no right in, he is amputated. For example, we take the fifth of the fifth and take what belongs to Allah and His Messenger, the fay, and the orphans, we make it separate, and the close relatives separate, and the wayfarer separate, and the fourth?
The questioner : The poor.
The Shaykh : The poor. He stole from the right of the orphans, and he is an adult of sound mind. Is he amputated or not?
The questioner : He is amputated.
The Shaykh : Why?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : He has no semblance in it. He stole from the fay which belongs to Allah and His Messenger, right? Is he amputated or not?
The questioner : The hand is not cut off.
The Shaykh : He is not amputated because he has a right in it because it is distributed to the public treasury. He stole from the share of the close relatives, and he is not one of the close relatives.
The questioner : He is amputated.
The Shaykh : He is amputated. We are done, we understood now completely. Who steals from the war spoils? Question: Who steals from it before the khums is taken?
The questioner : The hand is not cut off.
The Shaykh : He is not amputated. Who steals from it after the khums is taken, from the share of the fighters?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : There is a detail. If he is one of them, he is not amputated. If he is not one of them, he is amputated. If he steals from the fifth which will be distributed into five shares, if the khums has been taken and he steals from what he has no right in, he is amputated. And if the khums has not been taken, or he steals from what he has a right in, he is not amputated. Okay, so the author's statement "not had the khums taken" has details in its implication. The author says "or a poor person from the produce of an endowment for the poor", he is not amputated. Our example: there are date palms endowed for the poor. We cut the dates and put the cut dates in a storage place. A man from the poor comes and steals from it. Is he amputated or not?
The questioner : No, he is not amputated.
The Shaykh : Why?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Because he has a semblance of entitlement. He is among the entitled persons, so he is not amputated. Okay, there is food prepared for the poor, charities prepared for the poor, and a poor man comes and steals from it.
The questioner : He is amputated.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : The hand is not cut off.
The Shaykh : Why?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Because he has a semblance of entitlement in it. Okay, the author (may Allah have mercy on him) says "or a person", meaning or a person steals "from property in which he has a share", he is not amputated because the one who stole has a portion in it. For example, a person has property shared with another, say one hundred dirhams, and he steals fifty dirhams from this shared property. Is he amputated?
The questioner : The hand is not cut off.
The Shaykh : Why?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Because he has from the fifty?
The questioner : Half of it.
The Shaykh : Half of it, twenty-five. Okay, a man has a share in property amounting to one out of a million, and he steals nine hundred thousand from this property.
The questioner : The hand is not cut off.
The questioner : He is amputated.
The Shaykh : ... , you see he has only one out of the million, and he stole nine hundred only.
The questioner : The hand is not cut off.
The Shaykh : He is not amputated. Why? Because his share is undivided. Every dirham is divided by a million, and he has one from it, right? So when his share is undivided, whatever he steals from the shared property, he is not amputated because he has a portion in every part of it, however small, right? Okay, he says "or one of those from whom amputation is not carried out for theft". If a person steals from something in which one of those from whom amputation is not carried out for theft has a share, he is not amputated. If you steal from your father's property, are you amputated?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : You are not amputated. Your father has property shared between him and your uncle, and you steal from the shared property?
The questioner : The hand is not cut off.
The Shaykh : You are not amputated?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, there is property belonging to your uncle alone, separate from the share, and you steal from it.
The questioner : You are amputated.
The Shaykh : You are amputated? Okay, why were you not amputated in the first case?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Because your father has a share in this property. And if you steal from property in which one from whom amputation is not carried out for theft has a share, right? Then you are not amputated. What is the semblance? The partnership. So as long as this property has a share, even one out of a million, for a person from whose property I would not amputate if stolen, then I do not amputate for theft from this shared property, as the author said.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, he has nothing from it.
The questioner : Meaning during his father's lifetime?
The Shaykh : Yes, during his father's lifetime. If it is after his father's death, he has a share too. He himself has a share, but during his father's lifetime, if he steals from his father's property, is he amputated?
The questioner : He is not amputated.
The Shaykh : Okay, he stole from property shared between his father and another man?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, it is not a problem. He is not amputated. Why? Because this property that you stole from has a part in which you are not amputated for theft, which is what your father owns. And if there is a part in which you cannot be amputated, then amputation cannot be divided. Okay, if it is shared, your father has two-fifths and your uncle has three-fifths, are you amputated or not?
The questioner : The hand is not cut off.
The Shaykh : No, we amputate three fingers. Is that possible?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It is not possible to divide it. Okay, he says "amputation is not carried out".