because he could not exit without it. If he applies perfume while in the place of security and exits, and there does not remain upon him an amount of perfume that would constitute a nisab if gathered together, there is no cutting punishment for him, because what cannot be gathered has been destroyed by his using it; this is similar to the case of someone who eats food. If it does reach a nisab, then the cutting punishment is mandatory for him because he removed a nisab. Another view has been mentioned regarding the case where the perfume he applied reaches a nisab, stating that the cutting punishment is mandatory even if what could be gathered is less than the nisab, because he removed a nisab. The first view is preferable. If he drags a piece of wood and drops it after removing part of it from the place of security, there is no cutting punishment for him, whether or not the part removed is equal to a nisab, because its parts are not independent of one another. Likewise, if a usurper holds the end of someone's turban while the other end is in the hand of its owner, he is not liable for it. Likewise, if he steals a garment or a turban and removes part of it.

Section: If he breaches the place of security, enters and removes less than the nisab, then enters again and removes an amount that completes the nisab, you must consider: if this occurred at two distant times or on two different nights, the cutting punishment is not mandatory, because each of them is an individual theft that does not reach the nisab. The same applies if they occurred on one night but with a long duration between them. However, if they are close together, his cutting punishment is mandatory because it is considered a single theft; if the action of one partner is built upon the action of his partner, then building the action of a single person on his own previous action is more appropriate. The fifth, sixth, and seventh conditions are that the thief must be legally responsible (mukallaf), the theft must be proven, the owner must demand the stolen property, and doubts (shubuhat) must be negated. These will be mentioned in their appropriate places.

1580 - Issue: He said: (Except if the stolen item is fruit or palm hearts (kathar), then there is no cutting punishment for it).

He means by this the fruit in an orchard before it is brought into a place of security; there is no cutting punishment for this according to the majority of jurists. The same applies to the kathar taken from a palm tree, which is the heart of the palm. A meaning similar to this statement has been narrated from Ibn Umar.