Is a son liable to have his hand cut off for stealing from his father, regardless of generational distance?
Chapter on Amputation in Theft
Al-Mughni
Book of Ḥudūd (Prescribed Penalties)
Primary text
The son, whether ascending or descending in lineage, is not subject to amputation (*qata'*) for stealing his father's property, regardless of how far the lineage extends. This opinion is held by Al-Hasan, Al-Shafi'i, Ishaq, Al-Thawri, and the people of opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y). The evidence supporting this view is the close kinship which prohibits one from testifying on behalf of the other, akin to how the father is not punished for stealing the son's property. Furthermore, maintenance (*nafaqah*) is obligatory from the father's wealth to the son for the son's preservation, and thus the father's wealth cannot be destroyed (through amputation) for the preservation of the wealth itself. The exception concerning *zina* with his slave girl or retaliation for homicide where the son is subject to *hadd* or *qisas* is because he has no legal ambiguity (*shubha*) in those matters, unlike the issue of property.
Supporting text
The position held by Malik, Abu Thawr, and Ibn al-Mundhir, and seemingly implied by the apparent position of Al-Khiraqi, is that amputation is applicable. This is based on the general appearance of the primary texts (*al-Kitab*) and the reasoning that since the son is subject to the *hadd* penalty for committing *zina* with his slave girl and is subject to retaliation for homicide, he should also be subject to amputation for stealing his wealth, just as a non-relative (*ajnabi*) would be.