What is the legal ruling on stealing soil (turab)?
Chapter on Amputation in Theft
Al-Mughni
Book of Ḥudūd (Prescribed Penalties)
Primary text
If the soil is of low demand, such as that used for plastering (tayyeen) or building, there is no amputation because it is not customarily possessed as property. However, if the soil has considerable value, such as Armenian clay used for medicine, washing, or dyes like ochre (mughra), the ruling is debated. One view holds there is no amputation as it belongs to the category of things not typically possessed as property, akin to water. The second view mandates amputation because it is customarily possessed as property and transported to cities for trade, analogous to Indian aloeswood (al-'ud al-hindi).
Supporting text
The view against amputation likens soil of low demand to water. The view supporting amputation cites that valuable soil is customarily possessed and traded, making it analogous to traded goods like Indian aloeswood.