stronger than it. What this individual cited as an excuse is a claim of abrogation (naskh) based on mere possibility without any evidence to support it, and this is invalid by consensus. Furthermore, it is invalid from another perspective, due to the Prophet's statement: "Whoever steals anything from it after it has been stored in the threshing floor (jarin), and it reaches the value of a shield (mijan), then the cutting punishment is mandatory for him." He has thus clarified the necessity of the cutting punishment alongside the obligation of paying a penalty of double its value, which invalidates what the objector said. Ahmad argued that Umar penalized Hatib ibn Abi Balta'ah with double the value when his servants slaughtered a man from Muzaynah's camel. Al-Athram narrated both traditions in his "Sunan". Our scholars stated: Regarding livestock stolen from a pasture without being secured (muhraz), the penalty is double its value based on the tradition. This is what came in the context of the hadith of Amr ibn Shu'ayb, that the inquirer asked: "What about the harisah (sheep/cattle that stays out overnight) among them, O Prophet of Allah?" He replied: "Its value and its equivalent along with it, and a severe punishment (nakal). As for what is in the shelter (murah), the cutting punishment is mandatory if what he takes from it reaches the value of a shield." This is the wording of the narration of Ibn Majah. As for anything other than these two cases, one is not penalized for more than its value, or its equivalent if it is a fungible item. This is the position of our scholars and others, except for Abu Bakr, who was of the opinion that it is mandatory to pay a penalty of double the value of items stolen from an unsecured place, drawing an analogy to hanging fruit and the harisah of the mountain, and citing the hadith of Hatib as evidence. Our position is that the principle is the obligation of paying the value for fungible goods, and the actual value for non-fungible goods, based on the evidence of property destroyed, usurped, looted, stolen, and other instances where compensation is mandatory. An exception was made in these two cases due to the reports, so in all other cases, the rule remains based on the principle.

1581 - Issue: He said: (The beginning of the thief's cutting is that his right hand is cut from the wrist joint, and it is cauterized. If he repeats the offense, his left foot is cut from the ankle joint, and it is cauterized).