theft panishment of birds in imami jurisprudence

despite the consensus of jurists (fokaha) in safe custody of property (haraz) as one of the punishable conditions when the theft happens, some jurists made an exception in bird case. it means that stealing the bird would not subject to punishment namely cut off the thief's hand, even if the bird was in safe custody.  many of  fokaha, however,  believe that if the bird is in safe custody, the one who stole the bird will receive the punishment as cutting off her/his hand ,because of  insufficient  document and narratives to support the otherwise. after reviewing the testimony and evidence received from fokaha , it can be concluded that the ghiyath bin ibrahim narrative is a valid document and  it can be derived from implication that the stealing the bird absolutely is not subject to punishment namely cut off the thief's hand, even assuming the bird is in safe custody according to its appearance. thus, these narratives, due to separate specific reason, can be allocated to all verses, ayes, about stealing and to all those incoming narratives that the stealing the bird absolutely will not lead to punishment namely cut off the thief's hand, even assuming the bird is in safe custody