Is the hand of a guest who steals from their host subject to amputation (Qat')?
Chapter on Amputation in Theft
Al-Mughni
Book of Ḥudūd (Prescribed Penalties)
Primary text
Amputation is incumbent upon a guest who steals money from the location where they were lodged if the money was secured (mahruz) from them, provided the host did not restrict the guest's portion of the hospitality (qira). The basis for this ruling is that the guest stole secured property to which they had no legitimate claim, thus making them like a non-relative thief. This ruling is supported by the general legal principle that stealing secured property warrants amputation.
Supporting text
If the guest steals from a place where the host did not secure the property from them, amputation is not applied because the taking does not constitute theft from a secure location (hirz). Furthermore, if the guest stole only an amount equal to their due hospitality (qira) from a secured location, amputation is also waived. A narration from Ahmad supports the view that the guest is not subject to amputation, which is understood to apply only to one of the two preceding exempted cases. Abu Hanifa holds that amputation is never applicable to a guest because the host spread out their wealth in their home, making the guest similar to the host's son.