អ៊ុមដាតុល រីអាយ៉ះ (ការពន្យល់ក្បួនច្បាប់វីកាយ៉ះ ហាណាហ្វី)

And his statement - may God’s prayers and peace be upon him -: ((If he returns)): that is, to stealing[(5) ] not to what was stolen, lest he contradict[(1)] the evidence of the fall of infallibility, not[(2)] that he was stabbed, Al-Tahawi stabbed him(3) - may God be pleased with him -.

(And if it was changed and stolen, it was cut a second time, like a yarn[(1)] in which it was cut, then it was woven and it was stolen(2). Nor if it is stolen from a relative, it is forbidden for him [(3)]), whether [(4)] the money is his own, or the money of a foreigner due to suspicion of security, (other than his money from someone else’s house); If the property of a mahram relative is stolen from the home of a foreigner, it will be cut off; Because of the presence of the score.

(And the money of his wet nurse [(1)] (2)): Whether it was stolen from her house, or from someone else’s house, it is cut off, unlike Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him -; Because breastfeeding is rarely known, there is no ease, and permission to enter is not sufficient according to Islamic law. Breastfeeding is valid in the sister, even though it is interrupted. (Not from a husband [(3)] or a wedding, even from [(4)] his own private property. He only said this; Because there is disagreement with Al-Shafi’i (5) [(6)] - may God be pleased with him -.

(Nor from his master or his groom[(1)], or his mistress’s husband, nor from his offices[(2)], his host(3)[(4)], a booty(5), a pigeon[(6)], and a house permitted to enter him); If [(7)] the permission was granted during the day (1), then he stole at night and is cut off (2). And know[(3)] that the guard with a keeper is of no consequence when the guard is present in the place, so if something is stolen in the bathroom, and it has a keeper, then it is not cut off[(4)]; Because the pigeons are guarded, and (5) [the guard](6) has been disturbed by the permission(7) to enter, and there is no consideration for the custodian in it, so there is no cut off other than the custodian in the mosque, for the mosque is not a guard[(8)], so the custodian is considered.

(Or he stole something [(1)] and did not take it out of the house, or he entered a house and gave it to someone outside)(2), this is according to us, but according to Abu Yusuf and Al-Shafi’i (3) - may God be pleased with them - if he took out his hand and handed it to someone else, then he must cut it off, and if he put his hand out[(4)] to someone else and took it, then he must cut it off. And in ((Al-Dhakhira)) (2): If he places [(3)] between the inside and the outside, and then takes the other, then in one narration: he does not cut it, and in a narration: he cuts off their hand. (Or he dug[(4)] a house, put his hand into it, and took something): This is with us, and with Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him - it is cut as in a box[(5)].

We said [(1)]: Your fraud is not a sign of perfection, unlike the box; Because what is possible is nothing but this (2). (or cut (3) a bundle [(4)] out of a sleeve other than it), this includes (5) whether the bundle is other than the sleeve, or the same sleeve by placing the dirhams in the sleeve and tying them from the outside, so the position of the dirhams remains, which is part of the sleeve outside (6) what is in the sleeve, so if it flies, it is not necessary to cut it off. And know that if the bundle is the same, it comes in four forms; Because [either](7) he placed(8) the dirhams on the inside of the sleeve and the lace on the outside, or he placed them on the outside of the sleeve and the lace on the inside[(9)].

According to the two estimates, it is either annulled or dissolved[(1)] of the bond: If [(2)] is cut and the tie is on the outside, then it is not cut [(3)], and this is what happened before the division. And if he flies with the lace on the inside, that is by inserting his hand into the sleeve, cutting off the place of the dirhams, then taking the dirhams out with the edge, then taking the dirhams from the sleeve, then cutting to take from the edge. If [(4)] the ligament is loosened, and it is outside, it is cut; Because if the tie is loosened, he leaves the dirhams in the sleeve, so he must put his hand into the sleeve and take the dirhams.

If the tie is loosened while it is inside, it will not be cut; Because he put his hand into the sleeve and loosened the tie, so the dirhams remained outside the sleeve, so he took it from outside. According to Abu Yusuf [(1)] - may God be pleased with him - it cuts in all faces; Because the sleeve is scored.

(Or he stole a camel from a train(1)[(2)], or a lamb[(3)], and cut it, if (4) his Lord preserved it.) The commander[(5)], the driver, and the rider only intend to cover the distance without memorizing it, even if there is a guard[(6)] who cuts off the thief of the camel and the load, (or sleeps on him[(7)]); Sleeping on the lamb, or near it, protects it. (Or he split[(1)] the lamb(2) and took[(3)] something from it(4)); Al-Jawlaq(5)[(6)] is a score. (Or insert his hand[(7)] into someone else's box[(8)], or his sleeve, or his pocket(9)[(10)]). What is meant is inserting the hand into the sleeve; To take [(11)] not to dissolve the bond, as mentioned above (12).

(Or he took out from a compartment (1) a house [(2)] in which [(3)] had compartments into its courtyard (4), or a master stole a compartment from another in it), wanting a place such as a school, or something similar in which there were rooms in each of which a person lived, who had no relation[(5)] to the room (6) in which (7) someone else lived, not like a house[(8)] whose owner is one, and whose houses are occupied with his belongings and servants, and between whom there is space. (Or he threw something[(9)] from a guard on the road, then took it, or carried it on a donkey and led it and took it out of the guard), this is what we have.

According to Al-Shafi’i (1) - may God be pleased with him - he cuts it (2) whether he takes it or leaves it [(3)] on the road. And when he exhales - may God be pleased with him - there is no interruption in throwing[(4)](5) nor in carrying, for throwing is not taking out like handling someone who is outside, and as if he throws and does not take it.

We said [(1)]: If (2) no real hand occurred to him (3) then it is in the same position as his hand, so it was taken by taking after leaving, unlike the issues of handling and not taking (4). In the issue of carrying (5) the movement of (6) the animal, (7) is added to it.

Chapter [How to cut off, and proving it] (8) (The right hand of the thief[(1)] shall be cut off from his elbow(2)[(3)] and cut off(4)[(5)], then his left leg[(6)] if he returns, and if he returns a third time [no](1) he shall be imprisoned(2) until he repents), either imprisonment(3) only, or with punishment according to some of our sheikhs, and according to al-Shafi’i - may God be pleased with him - he cuts off his left hand, then his leg. right(4); According to his saying - may God bless him and grant him peace -: ((Whoever steals, cut him off; if he commits a crime, cut him off; if he commits a crime, cut him off)) (5).

Our doctrine is stated (6) on the authority of Ali (7) - may God be pleased with him -, and if [(8)] the hadith were authentic, he would not have contradicted it, and the companions would not have taken what he said, and Al-Tahawi criticized the hadith[(9)], or [it](1) is interpreted[(2)] on politics.

(If his left hand, or his thumb, or his two fingers[(3)], or his right leg was amputated, or he was paralyzed[(4)], or he returned[(5)] to its owner before the dispute, or he owned it[(6)] as a gift, or a sale, or its value decreased from the quorum before the amputation, or it was stolen and claimed ownership[(7)], or one[(8)] of the thieves, even if he did not prove it, or he did not claim[(1)] its owner, even if he acknowledged it. With it, there is no interruption[(2)]); Because if the right hand is cut off, and the force of force is lost [(3)] in the left hand, then (4) the type of benefit must be lost, and [it] (5) is in fact a loss (6). Likewise, if the right leg was cut off or paralyzed; Because if a person does not have a hand and a leg on one side, then he is not able [(7)] to walk at all, and as for both sides, he places the stick under his armpit; He will stand in the place of the man who has passed away. If the stolen property is returned to its owner before the dispute, the lawsuit cannot be filed, and the theft does not appear.

According to Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him - it is cut [(1)]. And (2) he only said: He owned it as a gift; So that it may be known [(3)] that what is meant is the gift (4) with the receipt. According to Zafar and Al-Shafi’i (5) - may God be pleased with them - it is cut off [(6)].

Likewise, if the value decreases [(1)], then (2) [(3)] is cut off. But it is not cut off with us; Because the quorum was not a condition when the theft occurred, and this is the state of the judiciary [(4)].

It has been mentioned in our books that according to Al-Shafi’i - may God be pleased with him - severance is not negated by the mere claim[(1)] of the thief that the stolen property is his property; Because no thief is unable to do that, which leads to closing the door to punishment, but in ((Al-Wajeez))(2)[(3)] he mentioned the opposite of this (1), and he explained that he became a rival[(2)] in the money, so how can he be cut off by someone else’s oath? And his saying: Or does the owner not demand it[(3)] and if [he](4) acknowledges it, then it is not decisive; That is, if the owner of the theft, i.e. the stolen item, does not demand it[(5)], then there is no cut off, even if the thief admits to the theft; Because since the lawsuit is a condition, the plaintiff must demand it.

(If they steal[(1)] and one of them is absent, and they testify(2) to their theft, the other shall be cut off(3).

It is cut off by the dispute of someone with a protective hand [(1)] such as a depositor, a usurper, and a usurer [(2)]: that is, he sold a dinar for two dinars and took them and they were stolen from his hand, (and a borrower, and a renter[(3)], a speculator[(4)], a recipient[(5)] of the purchase price(6), and a mortgagee[(1)], and with the dispute of the owner[(2)] the one who stole from them[(3)]).