Section: If a man claims against another that he stole a specific amount (nisab) from his secure storage, and he provides a witness for this and swears an oath alongside him, or if a man and two women testify for him regarding this, the money testified to is obligatory for him, if it still exists, or its value if it has been destroyed. However, the [penalty of] amputation (qat') is not required, because this is evidence for the property, not for the amputation. If he claims against a man that he intentionally killed his ward (wali), and he provides a witness and two women, or swears an oath alongside his witness, neither retaliation (qisas) nor blood money (diyah) is established. The difference between the two cases is that theft necessitates both amputation and financial compensation, so if one is not established, the other may be; however, intentional homicide is necessitated by retaliation itself, according to one of two narrations, while blood money is a substitute for it, and the substitute is not required unless the obligation of the original is found. According to the other narration, the requirement is one of the two without it being specified, so it is not permissible for one of them to be specified except through choice or impossibility, and neither of these was found. Ibn Abi Musa said: Property is not required in theft either, except through two male witnesses, because it is testimony [regarding an act that necessitates] both the hadd penalty and property, so if it is invalidated for one of them, it is invalidated for the other. The first view is more appropriate for the reasons we have mentioned. If a man claims against another that he intentionally struck his brother with an arrow and killed him, and it passed through to his other brother and killed him by mistake, and he provides a witness and two women, or a witness and swears an oath alongside him, the killing of the second is established because it is an error for which the penalty is financial, while the killing of the first is not established because it is intentional and the penalty is retaliation; thus, they are like two separate offenses. According to the view of Abu Bakr, neither is established because, in his view, an offense is not established except through two witnesses, regardless of whether the penalty is financial or otherwise. If a man claims against another that he stole from him and usurped property from him, and the defendant swore by divorce and manumission that he did not steal from him nor usurp from him, then the claimant produces a witness and two women who testify to the theft and usurpation, or he produces a witness and swears alongside him, he is entitled to the stolen and usurped items because he has brought evidence by which such things are established, and neither the divorce nor the manumission is established; because this