سنن نسائي
Nasai
كتاب قطع السارقThe Book of Cutting off the Hand of the Thief
بَابُ : مَا لاَ قَطْعَ فِيهِChapter: Things for which the hand may not be cut off
Hadith 4972
اُردوEn
أَخْبَرَنَا الْحُسَيْنُ بْنُ مَنْصُورٍ ، قَالَ : حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو أُسَامَةَ ، قَالَ : حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ سَعِيدٍ ، عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ يَحْيَى بْنِ حَبَّانَ ، عَنْ رَجُلٍ مِنْ قَوْمِهِ ، عَنْ رَافِعِ بْنِ خَدِيجٍ ، قَالَ : سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، يَقُولُ : " لَا قَطْعَ فِي ثَمَرٍ وَلَا كَثَرٍ " .
´It was narrated that Rafi bin Khadij said:` "I heard the Messenger of Allah say: 'The hand is not to be cut off for (stealing) produce or the spadix of palm trees."'
Related hadith on this topic
Explanation & Benefits
Shaykh Umar Farooq Saeedi
Benefits and Issues:
➊ Since fruits attached to trees or fallen dates, as well as trees planted in a garden, are not secure and, in legal terminology, do not fall under the category of theft liable to the hadd (prescribed punishment), taking such things without permission or secretly is undoubtedly a crime. However, the hand is not to be cut off for this; rather, an appropriate discretionary punishment (ta'zir), admonition, or fine will be imposed.
➋ After the command of the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) becomes known, there remains no place for giving preference to personal, political, or other interests.
➊ Since fruits attached to trees or fallen dates, as well as trees planted in a garden, are not secure and, in legal terminology, do not fall under the category of theft liable to the hadd (prescribed punishment), taking such things without permission or secretly is undoubtedly a crime. However, the hand is not to be cut off for this; rather, an appropriate discretionary punishment (ta'zir), admonition, or fine will be imposed.
➋ After the command of the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) becomes known, there remains no place for giving preference to personal, political, or other interests.
Source: Sunan Abu Dawood – Commentary by Shaykh Umar Farooq Saeedi, Page: 4388
Hafiz Muhammad Ameen
The meaning of Imam Nasa’i rahimahullah’s statement is that “Abu Maymun” is unknown (majhool). I do not know who this is; therefore, this is an error, because the chain of the well-known narration, which is that of the hadith masters (huffaz muhaddithin), such as: Layth and Sufyan al-Thawri, is as follows: “from Muhammad ibn Yahya ibn Hibban from his uncle Wasi’ from Rafi’ ibn Khadij” and: “from Yahya ibn Sa’id from Muhammad ibn Yahya ibn Hibban from his uncle that Rafi’ ibn Khadij…”, just as the two narrations preceding the aforementioned narration are. In the chain containing Abu Maymun, there is an error and mistake. And Allah knows best. However, the text (matn) of the hadith is authentic, because it is also narrated in the same manner through other authentic chains.
Source: Sunan Nasa'i: Translation and Benefits by Shaykh Hafiz Muhammad Amin Hafizullah, Page: 4971
Shaykh Safi ur-Rahman Mubarakpuri
Takhrij:
«أخرجه أبوداود، الحدود، باب ما لا قطع فيه، حديث:4388، والترمذي، الحدود، حديث:1449، والنسائي، قطع السارق، حديث:4963، وابن ماجه، الحدود، حديث:2593، وأحمد:3 /463، 4 /140، 142، وابن حبان (الإحسان): 6 /318، حديث:4449.»©Explanation:
From the apparent meaning and purport of this hadith, Imam Abu Hanifah rahimahullah and his companions have deduced that fruits which are still on the tree and are fresh—whether they are in a protected place or an unprotected place—do not incur the punishment of amputation of the hand (qat‘ yad) for theft.
Then, by analogy upon this, they have said that for meat, milk, beverages, bread, and other food items as well, there is no punishment of amputation of the hand.
However, the majority (jumhur) have stipulated the condition that if these items are unprotected, then taking them does not incur the punishment of amputation of the hand; otherwise, it will be considered theft and the punishment of amputation of the hand will apply.
They have stipulated this condition in order to reconcile this hadith with the hadith of Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-As radi Allahu anhuma (which will come after two hadiths).
And they have said that, in reality, this hadith pertains to the general custom of the people of Madinah, that they did not keep their orchards protected and secure.
«أخرجه أبوداود، الحدود، باب ما لا قطع فيه، حديث:4388، والترمذي، الحدود، حديث:1449، والنسائي، قطع السارق، حديث:4963، وابن ماجه، الحدود، حديث:2593، وأحمد:3 /463، 4 /140، 142، وابن حبان (الإحسان): 6 /318، حديث:4449.»©Explanation:
From the apparent meaning and purport of this hadith, Imam Abu Hanifah rahimahullah and his companions have deduced that fruits which are still on the tree and are fresh—whether they are in a protected place or an unprotected place—do not incur the punishment of amputation of the hand (qat‘ yad) for theft.
Then, by analogy upon this, they have said that for meat, milk, beverages, bread, and other food items as well, there is no punishment of amputation of the hand.
However, the majority (jumhur) have stipulated the condition that if these items are unprotected, then taking them does not incur the punishment of amputation of the hand; otherwise, it will be considered theft and the punishment of amputation of the hand will apply.
They have stipulated this condition in order to reconcile this hadith with the hadith of Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-As radi Allahu anhuma (which will come after two hadiths).
And they have said that, in reality, this hadith pertains to the general custom of the people of Madinah, that they did not keep their orchards protected and secure.
Source: Bulugh al-Maram: Commentary by Safiur Rahman Mubarakpuri, Page: 1058
