"And whoever steals something from a place not secured, whether it be fruit or dates or anything else, the value is doubled upon him and there is no amputation."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then he said "And whoever steals something from a place not secured". The meaning of a secured place was mentioned earlier; it is that which is used to safeguard wealth according to custom. If a person steals wealth from a place not secured, "whether it be fruit or dates or anything else, the value is doubled upon him and there is no amputation". "Doubled" means increased by its own amount. "And there is no amputation". As for the fact that there is no amputation, it is apparent because a condition for amputation is that the theft be from a secured place. An example of this is a man who steals dirhams or dinars from an open shop; here he stole from a place not secured. There is no amputation for him because one of the conditions for amputation is that the theft be from a secured place. However, the author states that the value is doubled upon him. So if the stolen item is worth one hundred, it is made two hundred. At that point, we need evidence for both issues: the absence of amputation and the establishment of the doubling. The absence of amputation is because one of the conditions for amputation is that it be from a secured place. The establishment of the doubling is because it is established from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that whoever steals fruit from a place not secured, the liability is doubled upon him, and he owes the value twice. The author (may Allah have mercy on him) says that there is no difference between the stolen item being fruit, dates, or anything else. The fruit is like dates, and "kathar" is said to be the date clusters, the clusters of the palm tree, or it is said to be the date flowers. For example, a male date palm might be climbed by a person at night who steals them. This is what the Sunnah brought, meaning the Sunnah came with fruit and kathar. As for anything else, the Sunnah did not come with it. So some scholars included anything else with them, as the author (may Allah have mercy on him) did. The school of thought (madhhab) is that anything else is not included with them. So if someone steals from a place not secured, there is no amputation, and he is only obligated to pay the value if it is a valued item, or the equivalent if it is a like-for-like item.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Okay, yes?
The questioner : Mentioned...
The Shaykh : No, "kathar" is with a kasrah and a fathah.
The questioner : ... with a dammah.
The Shaykh : No, no, it appears the author made a mistake. With a dammah, it is known, known with a fathah.
The questioner : With the fathah.
The Shaykh : Now, if a person steals something from a place not secured, is he amputated or not?
The questioner : He is not amputated.
The Shaykh : He is not amputated due to the absence.
The questioner : The condition.
The Shaykh : of the condition, unanimously. Is the value doubled upon him?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : If it is kathar or fruit, the value is doubled upon him unanimously, based on what came in the Sunnah. If it is anything else, there are two opinions. The school of thought is no doubling, and the second opinion is doubling. As for those who said doubling, they said that it is established in the Sunnah that the liability is doubled for fruit and kathar, and we do not know a basis for it other than that it was stolen from a place not secured. On this basis, the operative cause is that it was stolen from a place not secured, so the value is doubled upon him. Thus, whatever is stolen from a place not secured, its value is doubled upon him. As for those who said the value is not doubled, they said because the original rule for liability is to compensate for the thing with its equivalent. This is the original rule. So fruit and kathar, or kathar, when stolen, were excepted. What remains besides them stays on the original rule. They were excepted by explicit text, so what remains besides them stays on the original rule. The school of thought is this opinion, meaning there is no doubling. An example is a man who climbed a palm tree and pulled out a cluster or two clusters and took them. What is obligatory upon him? He is obligated to compensate for it with its equivalent twice. As for amputation, there is no amputation. Another example is a man who steals one thousand riyals in dirhams from a place not secured and takes them. There is no amputation for him because it is from a place not secured. But he must compensate for it, according to the author's statement, with its equivalent twice, so he compensates the hundred with two hundred. The school of thought is that he does not compensate it except with its equivalent, so he does not compensate except the hundred only. Now, he says "The value is doubled upon him and there is no amputation". This is closer. The statement of the author (may Allah have mercy on him) is closer, that the value is doubled upon him, because of the deterrent and warning in that, and because the punishment was dropped for him out of consideration for his state and his benefit, so the value is doubled upon him.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Okay, yes?
The questioner : Mentioned...
The Shaykh : No, "kathar" is with a kasrah and a fathah.
The questioner : ... with a dammah.
The Shaykh : No, no, it appears the author made a mistake. With a dammah, it is known, known with a fathah.
The questioner : With the fathah.
The Shaykh : Now, if a person steals something from a place not secured, is he amputated or not?
The questioner : He is not amputated.
The Shaykh : He is not amputated due to the absence.
The questioner : The condition.
The Shaykh : of the condition, unanimously. Is the value doubled upon him?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : If it is kathar or fruit, the value is doubled upon him unanimously, based on what came in the Sunnah. If it is anything else, there are two opinions. The school of thought is no doubling, and the second opinion is doubling. As for those who said doubling, they said that it is established in the Sunnah that the liability is doubled for fruit and kathar, and we do not know a basis for it other than that it was stolen from a place not secured. On this basis, the operative cause is that it was stolen from a place not secured, so the value is doubled upon him. Thus, whatever is stolen from a place not secured, its value is doubled upon him. As for those who said the value is not doubled, they said because the original rule for liability is to compensate for the thing with its equivalent. This is the original rule. So fruit and kathar, or kathar, when stolen, were excepted. What remains besides them stays on the original rule. They were excepted by explicit text, so what remains besides them stays on the original rule. The school of thought is this opinion, meaning there is no doubling. An example is a man who climbed a palm tree and pulled out a cluster or two clusters and took them. What is obligatory upon him? He is obligated to compensate for it with its equivalent twice. As for amputation, there is no amputation. Another example is a man who steals one thousand riyals in dirhams from a place not secured and takes them. There is no amputation for him because it is from a place not secured. But he must compensate for it, according to the author's statement, with its equivalent twice, so he compensates the hundred with two hundred. The school of thought is that he does not compensate it except with its equivalent, so he does not compensate except the hundred only. Now, he says "The value is doubled upon him and there is no amputation". This is closer. The statement of the author (may Allah have mercy on him) is closer, that the value is doubled upon him, because of the deterrent and warning in that, and because the punishment was dropped for him out of consideration for his state and his benefit, so the value is doubled upon him.