the stolen property as well, the amputation is waived; because his admission indicates that he owned it beforehand, so it is possible that it was his at the time he took it. The text narrated from Ahmad is that the amputation is not waived; because it is property whose cause of ownership was renewed after the amputation became obligatory, so it resembles a gift. Furthermore, this is a stratagem to waive the amputation after it became obligatory, so it is not waived by it, just like a gift.

1585 - Issue: He said: (If he removes it while its value is three dirhams, and it is not amputated until its value decreases, he is to be amputated.)

This is the opinion of Malik and al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa said: The amputation is waived; because the nisaab (minimum threshold) is a condition, and its continuity must be considered. Our evidence is the saying of Allah the Exalted: "And the male thief and the female thief, cut off the hands of both of them" (1). Furthermore, it is a decrease that occurred in the item, so it does not prevent amputation, just as if it had occurred due to his usage, and the nisaab is a condition for the obligation of amputation, so its continuity is not considered, unlike the secure repository (hirz). What he (2) mentioned is invalidated by the secure repository, for if the secure repository or his ownership were to cease, the amputation would not be waived from him. It is the same whether its value decreased before the ruling or after it; because the cause of the obligation is the theft, so the nisaab is considered at that time. As for if the nisaab decreased before the removal, the amputation is not obligatory; due to the absence of the condition before the completion of the cause, and it is the same whether it decreased by his action or by other than his action. And if it is found decreased, and it is not known whether it was decreased at the time of the theft or the decrease occurred after it? The amputation is not obligatory; because the obligation cannot be established while there is doubt regarding its condition, and because the default is its absence.

1586 - Issue: He said: (And when he is amputated, if the stolen property is still remaining, it is returned to its owner, and if it is destroyed (1), he is liable for its value [whether he is wealthy or destitute] (2))