It is not devoid of two scenarios: either he gains ownership of it before being brought to the ruler and claimed upon, or after that. If he gains ownership before that, amputation is not obligatory, because one of its conditions is a claim for the stolen property, and once he owns it, the claim is no longer valid. If he gains ownership after that, the amputation is not waived. This is the opinion of Malik, al-Shafi'i, and Ishaq. The scholars of reasoning (Ashab al-Ra'y) said: It is waived, because it has become his property, so he is not to be punished for an item that is his own property, just as if he had owned it before it was claimed. Furthermore, they argue that a claim is a condition, and the persistence of conditions (2) must be considered, and there is no longer a claimant for this (3) item. Our evidence is what al-Zuhri narrated from Ibn Safwan, from his father, that he slept in the mosque and used his cloak as a pillow, and it was taken from under his head. He brought the thief to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) ordered that he be punished by amputation. Safwan said: "O Messenger of Allah, I did not intend this; my cloak is a charity for him." The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) replied: "Why did you not do that before you brought him to me!" Narrated by Ibn Majah (5) and al-Juzajani. In another wording, he said: I came to him and said: "Will you cut his hand for thirty dirhams? I will sell it to him and grant him delay in paying its price." He said: "Why was this not before you brought him to me!" Narrated by al-Athram and Abu Dawud (6). This indicates that if it were found before bringing him to the ruler, it would avert the amputation, but after that, it does not waive it. As for their statement that the claim is a condition, we say: It is a condition for the [ruling, not a condition for the] (7) amputation, as evidenced by the fact that if he recovers the item, the amputation is not waived, even though the claim has ceased.

Section: If the person from whom the property was stolen admits that the stolen item was the property of the thief, or evidence is established for that, or that he had an ambiguity regarding it, or that the owner had permitted him to take it, or that he had dedicated it as an endowment (tasabbul), he is not to be punished by amputation; because we have clarified that it was not obligatory, unlike the case if he had gifted it to him, for that does not (8) prevent the hadd punishment from being obligatory. If he admits to him