Section: If one steals a nisab (the minimum threshold for theft) or usurps it and secures it, and then the owner comes, breaks the security (hirz), and takes his property, there is no cutting punishment for this (84) according to anyone, whether he took it by stealing or otherwise, because he took his own property. If he stole something other than his own, there are two views: one is that there is no cutting punishment for him (85), because he has a shubhah (ambiguity) in breaking the security and taking his property, so he is like one who steals from an unsecured place, and because he has a shubhah in taking the equivalent (86) of his own property, as some of the scholars (87) believe it is permissible for a person to take the equivalent of his debt from the property of the one who owes it. The second view is that the cutting punishment is mandatory, because he stole a nisab from its secured place without having any shubhah regarding it, and it is only permissible for him to take the equivalent of his property if he is unable to obtain his own property; since this person was able to take his own property, it was not permissible for him to take anything else. The same rule applies if he took his own property and took from someone else a nisab that is distinct from his own. However, if it was mixed with his property and not distinct, there is no cutting punishment for him, because he took the property he was permitted to take, and the other property was taken as a necessity of taking his own; therefore, it is mandatory that he not be punished for it, and because he has a shubhah in taking it, and the hadd punishment is warded off by shubhat (ambiguities). As for if he stole other property from him from outside the place where his own property was, or if he had a debt against someone and stole the equivalent of his debt from his property from its secured place, you must examine the situation: if the usurper or the debtor is offering what is owed and not refusing to pay, or if the owner was able to take his own property but abandoned it and stole the property of the usurper or the debtor, then the cutting punishment is mandatory for him, because he has no shubhah regarding it. But if he was unable to obtain his debt or the compensation for an injury to him, and he stole the equivalent of his debt or his right, there is no cutting punishment for him. The Qadi said: The cutting punishment is mandatory for him, based on our principle that he is not permitted to take the equivalent of his debt. Our evidence is that the permissibility of this is a matter of disagreement, so the hadd punishment is not mandatory for it, just like someone who engages in intercourse (88) within a marriage whose validity is disputed; the prohibition of taking does not negate the shubhah arising from the disagreement, and hadd punishments are warded off by shubhat. If he steals more than his debt, he is like the person from whom property was usurped who steals more than his own property, according to what has already passed.