their hands" (2). And this is a thief, for 'Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, said: The thief of our dead is like the thief of our living (3). What they mentioned is not correct, for a shroud is needed to be left in the grave, unlike other things, and it is sufficient for it to be in its hirz. Do you not see that the deceased is not left in a place other than the grave without his shroud being guarded, while it is left in the grave and they depart from it? As for their statement that it has no owner, it is rejected; rather, it is owned by the deceased, because he was the owner of it during his life, and his ownership does not cease except over that which he has no need of, and his guardian stands in his place in making the demand, just as the guardian of an orphan stands in his place in demanding his property. Once this is established, the shroud must be removed from the grave, because it is the hirz. If he removes it from the niche (lahd) and places it in the grave, there is no amputation for it, because he has not removed it from the hirz, resembling the case where one moves property in a house from one side to another, for the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) called the grave a house (5).

Section: The shroud whose theft warrants amputation is [that which is] (6) prescribed. If a man is shrouded in more than three wrappings, or a woman in more than five, and the excess is stolen, or he leaves it in a coffin and the coffin is stolen (7), or he leaves with him gathered perfume, gold, silver, or jewels, he is not to be amputated for taking any of that; because it is not a prescribed shroud, so leaving it therein is foolishness and waste, and thus it is not considered protected property (muhraz), and its thief is not to be amputated.

Section: Is it necessary, in the case of amputating a grave-robber, that there be a demand [for prosecution]? There are two possibilities: First, that it requires a demand, like other stolen items. According to this, the claimant is the heirs, because they stand in the place of the deceased regarding his rights, and this is one of his rights. Second, that it does not require a demand, because the demand in theft