Is amputation (cutting off the hand) obligatory for theft if the stolen property belongs to one's own raiding party, father, or master?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Jihad
Primary text
Amputation is not obligatory if the thief is one of the spoils takers (Ghanimah), or if the stolen property belongs to his father or master. This is because the thief possesses a semblance of right (shubha) concerning the property, as it is related to his legitimate share or established rights. Limits (Hadd) are repelled by doubtful matters (Shubuhāt). This principle applies similarly if the property was jointly owned by the thief and another, or if it belonged to his son, no matter how remote the lineal descendant. This is the position held by Abu Hanifa and Al-Shafi'i.
Supporting text
Abu Hanifa further stipulates that if a relative (dhu rahim mahram) has a right in the property, amputation is not obligatory, based on the principle that one is not subject to amputation for stealing the property of their close relatives. Furthermore, if one spouse steals from the property of the other, amputation is not performed according to those jurists who do not consider the property of one spouse to be subject to amputation if stolen by the other.