عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]چکیده [English]
There is a disagreement among jurists about the Islamic verdict on those who are attained to a part-proprietorship, but one or more committed to steal those properties from the others. After reviewing the testimony and evidence received from jurists, the authors arrive at the conclusion that although the narrative developed by Abdullah bin Sanan implies that if one of the partners indulged to steal others properties by knowing that there is no permissibility for him to seize property without permission of the other partners, he would be subjected to HAAD punishment and that is when the stolen properties reach a quorum namely the one-fourth of a dinar which is required to make him worthy of hand amputation (according to correct quote) and if otherwise, he will not be subjected to hand amputation, it depends on whether or not the type of ownership has been specified in each part of property; according to cooperative properties policies. It also should be specified if there is a doubt whether the type of ownership, after the larceny is in compatible with that of before the larceny in each part of property. The Principle of Istishab (Presumption of Continuity) says that at the time of passing the verdict, it is necessary to consider the type of ownership even after the larceny.