Short Answer:
A Muslim who steals from a dhimmi is to have his hand cut off. This is the well-known position of many scholars including Imam Ash-Shafiʿi and Ibn Qudamah. Some others disagreed and said he is not cut off, comparing it to how a Muslim is not executed for killing a dhimmi.
A dhimmi who steals from a Muslim or another dhimmi (non-Muslim under permanent protection of a Sharia run country) is to be cut off if the stolen amount reaches the nisab (minimum amount required for the theft punishment). This is also the view of al-Shafiʿi and Ibn Qudamah, who said the dhimmi is under Islamic rule and its laws must be applied to him.
There is no cutting off for a poor person who steals food during famine or hardship. This is agreed upon by the scholars due to necessity.
A child, someone who is mentally ill, someone forced, a non-Muslim at war with Muslims, or a non-Arab who does not know the ruling is not to be punished. They are not accountable under Sharia.
The Hanafi scholars, including Abu Hanifah and al-Sarakhsi, said if a Muslim steals from a mustaʾman (non-Muslim given temporary protection), he is not to be cut off. This is because his property was originally from a harbi and due to the fear of harm to Muslim captives in non-Muslim lands.
The Shafiʿi scholars said if a mustaʾman or muʿāhad (non-Muslim under treaty) steals, the cutting off only applies if that condition was in the agreement. Otherwise, it does not apply. Most of them said that neither side is to be cut off for theft between them.
The Hanbali scholars said the hadd (fixed punishment from Quran, or sunnah) of theft applies even if someone denies having borrowed an item. They do not require the agreement to mention it explicitly.
Ibn ʿUthaymin said there is no cutting off for stealing instruments of amusement like the flute or drum, because they are not respected in Sharia. There is also no sin or liability for destroying them.
He also said tape recorders and radios are respected depending on their use. If used for lawful things, they are respected property. If only for haram, then stealing them does not lead to the hand being cut off.
Ibn ʿUthaymeen ruled that if someone destroys such an instrument secretly and avoids harm, it is good and not sinful. But if one has no authority, they should not break it openly.
He said there is no cutting off for stealing wine, as it has no value in Islam. If it is stolen with a container, the ruling depends on intention. If the aim was the container, the hand is cut off. If it was for the wine, it is not.
If someone steals perfume with strong alcohol, the ruling depends on whether it is considered wine or not. If it is wine, there is no punishment. If it is respected property, then the hand is cut off. The judge makes the decision.
It is forbidden to steal from non-Muslims under safety. Ibn Hajar explained that the Prophet ﷺ rejected the wealth that al-Mughīrah brought because it was taken through betrayal. Trust must be honoured whether the owner is Muslim or non-Muslim.
Al-Shafiʿi said a Muslim entering a land of war with safety must not take anything, as their wealth is protected. He listed three protections: Islam, dhimmah, and temporary safety.
Al-Sarakhsi said betrayal is forbidden even to enemies, and buying stolen goods from them is also disliked. He cited the story of al-Mughīrah as proof.
Ibn Baz said it is not allowed to steal from disbelievers or deal in usury with them unless they are at war with Muslims. If they are under covenant or safety, their property and honour must not be harmed.
Ruling on a Muslim Stealing from a Dhimmi
If a Muslim steals from the property of a dhimmi (a non-Muslim under Islamic protection), his hand is to be cut off according to the well-known opinion, because the dhimmi’s wealth is protected under his covenant. Some scholars, however, said that the Muslim should not be punished with the cutting off, comparing it to the ruling that a Muslim is not executed if he kills a dhimmi.
Ruling on a Dhimmi Stealing from a Muslim or Another Dhimmi
If a dhimmi steals the amount that reaches the nisāb (minimum amount for hadd to apply) from the property of a Muslim or another dhimmi, his hand is to be cut off. This is because by living under Islamic rule, he is subject to its rulings, whether he accepts them or not. The Muslim ruler is required to apply the Sharia upon him, including the punishment for theft.
Exceptions Where the Hadd of Theft is Not Applied
There are situations in which the punishment of cutting off the hand is not applied, even if the theft meets the required amount:
- A poor person who steals food during famine, extreme poverty, or severe inflation is not punished, due to necessity and hardship.
- A child, a mentally ill person, or someone forced against their will is not cut off because they are not legally accountable.
- A non-Muslim at war with Muslims (harbi) is not subject to Sharia, so his hand is not cut off.
- A non-Arab who is unaware of the prohibition of theft in Islam is excused due to ignorance.
The Hanafi Position on Stealing from a Musta’man
The Ḥanafī scholars said: If a Muslim steals from a mustaʾman (a non-Muslim temporarily under Muslim protection), the thief is not punished with cutting off, because the property belongs to someone originally in a state of war. Since the wealth of a harbi is spoils of war, stealing it does not carry the hadd. They also said this punishment is avoided to prevent harm to Muslim captives who may be retaliated against in enemy lands. So the punishment is left to protect the greater public interest.
The Shafiʿi Position on Stealing by and from a Person under Covenant
According to the Shāfiʿī scholars, if a muʿāhad (non-Muslim under a formal treaty) or a mustaʾman steals from a Muslim, a dhimmi, or another person under covenant, then two opinions exist:
- If the agreement includes a condition that he accepts the punishment of cutting off for theft, it must be carried out.
- If that was not part of the agreement, then he is not to be punished with the cutting off, because he did not accept the ruling.
The stronger view among them is that neither the Muslim nor the non-Muslim is to be cut off when theft occurs between them.
The Hanbali Position on Theft Through Denial of Borrowed Items
According to the Ḥanbalī scholars, the hadd punishment for theft is applied even in cases where a person borrows something and later denies having received it. The hand is cut off, and they do not require the ruling to be made conditional.
Ruling On Stealing Instruments of Amusement and Non-Respected Property By Ibn Uthaymeen
Shaykh Ibn ʿUthaymīn explained that if someone steals items like musical instruments (e.g. flute, violin, drum), his hand is not cut off, because such items are not respected in the Sharia. These are not considered legitimate property, and no liability applies for breaking or destroying them.
As for items like tape recorders or radios, their ruling depends on how they are used. If they are used for lawful purposes, they are respected property. If they are used for corruption, then they are not. If the item is used only for haram, then stealing it does not lead to cutting off the hand.
Ruling on Taking and Destroying Items of Amusement
If someone takes and breaks an item of amusement:
- If he has legal authority, it is permissible.
- If he has no authority, he should not take or break it openly, as it could lead to harm.
- If he takes it secretly and destroys it without being noticed, it is considered good and not sinful, and there is no liability upon him.
No Cutting Off for Stealing Prohibited Items Like Wine
There is no cutting off for stealing something prohibited like wine, because it has no financial value in Islam. Even if someone steals it by filling his own container, the punishment does not apply. If he steals it along with the container, then only the container must be compensated for.
If his goal was the container, then the hand is cut off. If his goal was the wine, then it is not. This can be known by what he does with the wine after stealing—if he pours it out and keeps the container, the intention was clear.
Ruling on Stealing Perfumes with Alcohol
If someone steals perfume containing alcohol strong enough to intoxicate, the ruling depends on whether it is considered wine or not:
- If it is wine, no cutting off applies.
- If it is not wine and is treated as valuable property, then the hand is cut off.
This matter depends on the ruling of the Islamic judge in each case.
Stealing from non-Muslims is a serious matter, and the punishment of cutting off the hand applies when the wealth is protected under Sharia , such as in the case of a dhimmi. Scholars agreed that the property of dhimmis, mustaʾmans, and muʿāhads is protected, but they differed on whether the hadd applies in every case.
The exceptions are based on necessity, accountability, treaty conditions, and whether the stolen item is considered respected property in the Sharia. The majority view is that stealing from a non-Muslim who is under the protection of Islam is not permitted, and in most cases, the thief is punished like he would be if he stole from a Muslim.
Translation:
If a Muslim steals the property of a dhimmi, or vice versa
The Muslim is to have his hand cut off if he steals from the wealth of a dhimmi, according to the well-known position, because the dhimmi’s property is protected under his covenant. However, it is also said that the Muslim is not to be cut off, just as he is not executed if he kills the dhimmi.
As for the dhimmi, he is to have his hand cut off if he steals the required amount (nisaab) from the property of a Muslim, or from the property of another dhimmi like him, because he has committed to the rulings of Islam, whether he is pleased with our ruling or not. This is because our religion commands us to rule in this way.
However, a poor person is not to have his hand cut off if he steals food from a Muslim or a dhimmi, and this is especially the case in times of famine, hardship, and widespread inflation. This is because such conditions are an excuse that prevents the punishment from being applied.
Also, a child, a mentally ill person, or someone forced against their will is not to be cut off if one of them steals the required amount from a secure place, because accountability has been lifted from them. Likewise, a non-Muslim in a state of war (harbi) is not cut off, because he is not subject to our laws, nor is a non-Arab who is ignorant of the ruling that theft is prohibited.
The Hanafi scholars said: If a Muslim steals the required amount from the property of a musta’man (non-Muslim under temporary protection), the thief is not to have his hand cut off, because that property originally belonged to someone in a state of war. And the wealth of a harbi is considered spoils of war, so there is no cutting off for stealing it. They also said: The thief is not to be cut off in these cases, because it is possible that we have Muslim prisoners in enemy lands, and the enemies might retaliate against them due to our cutting off a person who was under covenant or protection. So the punishment is left aside in order to protect the general interest. Also, the law of Islam does not apply to them.
The Shafi’i scholars said: If a person under covenant (mu’ahad) or temporary protection (musta’man) steals from the wealth of a Muslim, a dhimmi, or another person under covenant, then the more correct opinion is: if it was stipulated in the agreement that he would be punished by cutting off his hand for theft, then the punishment must be carried out because he agreed to it. Otherwise, he is not to be cut off because he did not accept the ruling. They also said: the stronger position among the majority of scholars is that neither of the two should be cut off for theft.
The Hanbali scholars said: The punishment for theft must be applied to someone who denies borrowing an item (i.e. someone who takes a borrowed item and falsely claims he never received it), and his hand is to be cut off. This is because they do not require an explicit condition in this matter.
The Noble Shayk Salih al-ʿUthaymin said in ash-Sharh al-Mumtiʿ (14/332): His statement, “There is no cutting off for stealing an instrument of amusement,” even though it is property, is because it is not respected in the Sharia. Such instruments include the flute, the violin, the ʿūd, the rebab, the drum, and similar items.
As for whether a tape recorder or radio falls under instruments of amusement, the original ruling on them is that they are respected. If the owner uses them for something beneficial, then they are beneficial, and if he uses them for something corrupt, then they are corrupt in that case.
However, items that are only used for prohibited purposes are not subject to the punishment of cutting off the hand if stolen.
Also, there is no liability for them. So if you were to take one of them and break it, we would say: may Allah reward you with good, and we would not hold you liable, nor would we say you have sinned.
That is because it is obligatory to destroy instruments of amusement and idle play, and it is not permissible for the owner to keep them in his possession. Rather, he is obliged to destroy them. Whoever is able to change the evil with his hand must destroy them. If he cannot, then with his tongue, and if he cannot, then with his heart.
If someone were to ask: is it permissible for me to attack the owner of an instrument of amusement, take it from him, and break it?
The answer is that it depends. If you have authority, then yes, you may do so. But if you do not have authority, then do not do that, because it may lead to greater harm than simply leaving it with him. You may or may not be able to overpower him, and he might resist. However, if you take it secretly and in a way that he does not find out, and you break it, then this is good, and you are not sinful, and no harm results from it.
His statement, “Nor [is there cutting off] for something prohibited like wine,” means that there is no cutting off for stealing something prohibited like wine. This is because wine is not considered property at all, and it has no financial value in the Sharia. This is unlike instruments of amusement, which do have financial value, because if they were modified from their prohibited form, they could be used for permissible purposes.
As for wine, there is no way to benefit from it. Even if it is turned into vinegar, that is not allowed unless it happened on its own. Based on that, if someone steals wine, his hand is not cut off, because it is not property.
But how does someone steal wine without a container?
He might enter a place where wine is kept, bringing his own container, and then fill it from the wine. In that case, there is no cutting off.
As for if he steals the wine along with its container, then according to the well known view in the madhhab, there is no cutting off, but the container must be compensated for. That is because the act of theft included both something that permits the cutting off and something that prevents it, so the side that prevents it was given precedence.
However, it can be said that this matter has more detail. If his intention was the container, then the hand should be cut off. If his intention was the wine, then there is no cutting off. This can be known by the fact that the person does not drink wine, and that he poured it out immediately upon exiting. In this case, his intention was the container, and therefore his hand is cut off. Similarly, if he pours out the wine before leaving the place and exits carrying only the container, then he should be punished with the cutting off, because he stole the container.
A related issue: if someone steals perfumes that contain alcohol to the extent that it causes intoxication, is his hand cut off or not?
The answer: if we say that it is wine, then his hand is not cut off. But if we say that it is not wine, and that it is considered a form of property that people value and buy and sell, then the punishment applies and the hand is cut off. Therefore, this returns to the view of the Islamic judge in the case, for the matter is one in which there is disagreement among the scholars.
Al Fiqh ‘Ala Madhahib al Arba’ah By Al-Jaziri (4/421-422)
The Muslim’s Obligation to Show Good Character
A Muslim is commanded to be honest, trustworthy, and loyal to agreements. Many people have entered Islam because of the good manners and trustworthy behaviour of Muslims. If a Muslim steals from non-Muslims, whether in Muslim lands or their lands, he harms the image of Islam and assists those who attack the religion.
Entering Non-Muslim Lands with an Agreement
When a Muslim enters a non-Muslim country, he does so based on an agreement of safety, such as a visa. Taking their wealth without right is a breach of that covenant and a form of theft. This is forbidden and a major sin in Islam.
The Example of al-Mughīrah ibn Shuʿbah
Before accepting Islam, al-Mughirah travelled with a group during the time of ignorance, killed them, and took their wealth. After accepting Islam, he brought the wealth to the Prophet ﷺ. The Prophet said: “As for Islam, I accept it. As for the wealth, I have no need for it.” In a version reported by Abu Dawud: “It is wealth gained through betrayal, and we have no need for it.” This hadith is reported in al-Bukhari, Muslim, and Abu Dawud, and authenticated by al-Albani
Explanation of the Hadith by Ibn Ḥajar
Ibn Ḥajar explained that the Prophet ﷺ rejected the wealth because it was taken through betrayal. This shows that it is not allowed to take the wealth of non-Muslims during a time of safety and trust. Journeying together builds trust, and this trust must be honoured whether the other person is Muslim or non-Muslim. Ibn Ḥajar added that the Prophet may have left the wealth with al-Mughīrah in case his people later became Muslim so he could return it.
Statement of Imām Ash-Shāfiʿī
Imām Ash–Shāfiʿī said: If a Muslim enters the land of war (dār al-ḥarb) under a safety agreement and takes their wealth, it is not permissible, no matter how small, because just as he is safe from them, they are safe from him. This is based on the principle that wealth is protected in three cases:
- When the owner is Muslim
- When the owner is a dhimmī (non-Muslim living under Islamic rule)
- When the owner is under a temporary safety guarantee
One under temporary safety is treated like a dhimmī regarding the protection of his wealth until that period ends.
Statement of al-Sarakhsī
Al-Sarakhsī said: It is disliked for a Muslim who has a covenant of safety to betray the non-Muslims, as betrayal is forbidden. The Prophet ﷺ said: “Every betrayer will have a flag raised behind him on the Day of Judgement by which he will be recognised.” If someone does betray and steals their wealth, it is makrūh for another Muslim to buy from him if he knows it was stolen. Buying from him encourages betrayal, which is disliked. He also referred to the story of al-Mughīrah as the basis for this.
Ruling from Shaykh Ibn Bāz
Shaykh Ibn Bāz was asked about those who claim it is allowed to deal in ribā with non-Muslims or to take their wealth through theft or betrayal in the West. He replied: It is not permissible to deal in ribā with anyone, Muslim or kāfir. It is also not allowed to take the wealth of kāfirs through betrayal, except in a state of war. If there is no war, and the non-Muslim is under a covenant or safety agreement, then it is forbidden to harm them or take their wealth. Only when war has started, and the disbelievers are openly fighting Muslims, is it allowed to take their wealth and women in jihad. But in times of peace, such actions are forbidden.
The Ruling on the Thief’s Hand Being Cut Off
According to the view of Imām Ash-Shāfiʿī and others, the hand of a Muslim is cut off if he steals from another Muslim or a dhimmi, and likewise, a dhimmi is punished if he steals from a Muslim or another dhimmi. This is agreed upon by the majority. As for a non-Muslim who is in a state of war but enters Muslim lands with a safety agreement and then steals, there is a difference of opinion. Some, like Abu Ḥanifah, say his hand should not be cut off, while others say it should, because the stolen wealth was protected.
A Muslim must be a model of honesty, trustworthiness, loyalty to agreements, and good character. Many non-Muslims entered Islam because they saw the beauty of Islam and the good character of its followers.
The wealth he steals from them is forbidden. It is reported that al-Mughīrah ibn Shuʿbah had accompanied a group of people in the time of ignorance, killed them, and took their wealth. When he later came and accepted Islam, the Prophet ﷺ said: “As for Islam, I accept it. As for the wealth, I have no need for it.”
In the version of Abu Dawud: “As for Islam, we have accepted it. As for the wealth, it is wealth gained through betrayal, and we have no need for it.”
(Narrated in Bukhari and Muslim ,Abu Dawud 2765, and authenticated by al-Albani in Sahih Abi Dawud 2403)
Ibn Hajar said: His saying “As for the wealth, I have no need for it” means that the Prophet ﷺ did not interfere with it because it was taken through betrayal. From this, it is understood that it is not allowed to take the wealth of non-Muslims in times of safety through betrayal, because companionship on a journey is based on trust. Trust must be fulfilled whether the owner is Muslim or non-Muslim. The wealth of non-Muslims only becomes lawful through combat and open war. Perhaps the Prophet ﷺ left the wealth in al-Mughīrah’s hands in case his people later accepted Islam so that it could be returned to them. (Fath al-Bari 8/468)
Imam Ash-Shafiʿi said: “If a Muslim enters the land of war (dar al-harb) with a guarantee of safety and is able to seize some of their wealth, it is not lawful for him to take anything at all, whether small or large, because just as he is safe from them, they are safe from him. It is not allowed for him in such a state to take anything more than what is allowed from the wealth of Muslims or dhimmis. The protection of wealth is based on several grounds:
First, the Islam of its owner.
Second, being under a dhimmah contract.
Third, being under a temporary safety guarantee.
The one under a temporary safety guarantee is like a dhimmi with respect to the protection of his wealth until that time ends.” (Kitab Al-Umm 4/284)
Al-Sarakhsi said: “I dislike that a Muslim who has safety from them in his religion should betray them, because betrayal is forbidden. The Prophet ﷺ said: ‘Every betrayer will have a flag raised at his backside on the Day of Judgement by which he will be recognised.’ If he does betray them and takes their wealth and brings it into the lands of Islam, then it is disliked for a Muslim to buy it from him if he knows the source, because it was gained through unlawful means. Buying it would encourage him to repeat the act, which is disliked.
The basis for this is the hadith of al-Mughīrah ibn Shuʿbah when he killed his companions and brought their wealth to Madinah and accepted Islam. He asked the Prophet ﷺ to take the khums (fifth) of the wealth, but the Prophet ﷺ said: ‘As for your Islam, it is accepted. As for your wealth, it is wealth gained through betrayal, and we have no need for it.'” (al-Mabsut 10/96)
Summary: It is forbidden for a Muslim to steal from non-Muslims in a state of safety or trust, whether in their lands or elsewhere. Their wealth is inviolable unless they are in a state of war with Muslims. Entering their land with a visa or safety assurance means a Muslim must not betray them. Islam strictly forbids such betrayal, and it is a major sin.
Translation: Question To Shayk Bin Baz: In the lands of the West, there are some who say that it is permissible for a Muslim to deal in usury with non-Muslims, using the argument that it is a land of disbelief. There are also those who claim that it is permissible to take their wealth, even by stealing or betrayal. May Allah benefit us through you, what is the ruling of the Sharia regarding these claims?
Answer: It is not permissible to deal in usury with disbelievers or with Muslims. It is also not permissible to take their wealth through betrayal, except in a state of war. If they are in a state of war, then their wealth and women may be taken during fighting and jihad. But as long as they are under a covenant of safety or security, then nothing should be taken from them, and they must not be betrayed, except in a state of war, when the disbelievers are distinct and separated from the Muslims, and if war has broken out between them, then it is allowed to oppose them and to take their wealth, their women, and their offspring. But in their current condition, it is not allowed to betray them nor to take their wealth without right.
Majmu Fatawa By Bin Baz (28/129-130)
Translation: The Ruling on Cutting Off the Hand of the Thief
A Muslim’s hand is cut off for stealing the wealth of another Muslim or a dhimmi, and the dhimmi’s hand is also cut off if he steals the wealth of either of them. This is the view of al-Shafi‘i, the scholars of opinion, and we do not know of any disagreement about it.
As for a harbi (a non-Muslim at war with Muslims) who enters our land with a guarantee of safety and then steals, his hand is also to be cut off. Ibn Hamid said: he is not to be cut off.
This is also the view of Abu Hanifah and Muhammad, because this is one of Allah’s prescribed punishments (hudud), and it should not be carried out on him, just as the hadd for zina is not carried out.
Based on this, a Muslim is to be cut off for stealing the wealth of a dhimmi. According to Abu Hanifah, it is not required. But our view is that he has stolen protected wealth from a secure place, so cutting off his hand is required, just like one who steals from a dhimmi’s wealth.
Also, the hand of a murtadd (apostate) is cut off if he steals, because the rulings of Islam still apply to him.
Al Mughni By Ibn Qudamah (12/451)
