the majority of jurists. The same applies to the kathar taken from a palm tree, which is the heart of the palm (jummar). A meaning similar to this statement has been narrated from Ibn Umar. This is also the position of Ata, Malik, al-Thawri, al-Shafi'i, and the scholars of reasoning (ashab al-ra'y). Abu Thawr said: If it is from fruit or a secured orchard, then the cutting punishment is mandatory. Ibn al-Mundhir also held this view if the report of Rafi' is not considered authentic, saying: I do not believe it is established. Both argued based on the literal meaning of the Quranic verse and by drawing an analogy to other secured properties. Our evidence is what Rafi' ibn Khadij narrated from the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), who said: "There is no cutting punishment for fruit or kathar." Reported by Abu Dawud and Ibn Majah. From Amr ibn Shu'ayb, from his father, from his grandfather, from Abdullah ibn Amr, from the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), that he was asked about fruit hanging on trees and said: "Whoever, being in need, eats with his mouth without taking any away in his garment, there is no consequence for him. Whoever leaves with any of it, he must pay a penalty of double its value and receive a punishment. 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." This specific ruling qualifies the general application of the verse. Furthermore, an orchard is not a place of security (hirz) for anything other than the fruit, [so it is not] a place of security for it, just as if it were not enclosed. However, if there is a palm tree or a tree within a secured house and he steals a nisab from it, then the cutting punishment is mandatory because he stole from a place of security. And Allah knows best.

Section: If he steals from the hanging fruit, he must pay a penalty of double its value. Ishaq also held this view due to the aforementioned report. Ahmad said: I do not know of anything that contradicts it. Most jurists said: A penalty of no more than its equivalent value is mandatory. Ibn Abd al-Barr said: I do not know of any jurist who stated that a penalty of double its value is mandatory. Some followers of al-Shafi'i excused themselves from this report by stating that it was applicable when punishment was carried out through financial penalties, and that it was subsequently abrogated. Our evidence is the statement of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), which is a proof that cannot be permitted to be contradicted except by something that opposes it of equal or