"And by Him in whose hand is my soul, if Fatimah bint Muhammad were to steal (4), I would have cut off her hand." She said: So he cut off her hand. Ahmad said: I do not know of anything that counters this. It is agreed upon (5). Another narration from him (Ahmad) states: No cutting is upon him. This is the opinion of al-Khiraqi, Abu Ishaq ibn Shaqla, Abu al-Khattab, and the rest of the jurists. This is the correct view, Allah willing, due to the saying of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace): "There is no cutting for the one who commits treachery." Furthermore, the mandatory rule is the cutting of the thief, and the denier is not a thief; rather, he is a traitor, so he is akin to one who denies a trust (wadi'ah). The woman who used to borrow goods was only cut off for her theft, not for her denial (6). Do you not see his saying: "If the noble among them stole, they would leave him, and if the weak among them stole, they would cut him." And his saying: "And by Him in whose hand is my soul, if Fatimah bint Muhammad were to steal (4), I would have cut off her hand." In some versions of the narration of this story from 'Aisha, it is mentioned that the Quraysh were distressed by the affair of the Makhzumiyyah woman who stole, and she mentioned the story. Recorded by al-Bukhari. In a hadith (7), it states that she stole a velvet cloak (qatifah). Al-Athram narrated with his chain of transmission from Mas'ud ibn al-Aswad, who said: When that woman stole that velvet cloak from the house of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), we considered it a grave matter; she was a woman of Quraysh. So we came to the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and said: We will ransom her for forty uqiyah. He said: "Purifying her is better for her." When we heard the softness of the speech of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), we went to Usamah and said: Speak to the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) for us. He mentioned the hadith in a manner similar to the account of 'Aisha (8). This makes it clear that the incident is singular and that she stole, and thus was punished by having her hand cut off due to her theft. 'Aisha only identified her by her denial of the borrowed item because she was known for that; it does not necessitate that this was the cause, just as if she had identified her by one of her attributes. In what we have mentioned, there is a synthesis between the hadiths, [and conformity to the apparent meaning of the hadiths] (9) and analogy, as well as the jurists of the major cities; thus it is more appropriate. As for the one who denies a trust (wadi'ah) or other items,