al-Mundhir. al-Hasan, al-Sha'bi, Malik, and Ishaq said: The cutting punishment is applied for the theft of a small free child, because they are not discerning and thus resemble a slave. Abu al-Khattab mentioned this as a narration from Ahmad. We contend that it is not wealth, therefore cutting is not applied for its theft, just like a sleeping adult. Once this is established, if the child has jewelry or clothing on them that reaches the threshold (nisab), the thief is not cut. This is the view of Abu Hanifa and most of the Shafi'i scholars. Abu al-Khattab mentioned another opinion, which is that the thief is cut. This is the view of Abu Yusuf and Ibn al-Mundhir, based on the apparent meaning of the Book, and because he stole a threshold of jewelry, so the cutting became mandatory for it, just as if he had stolen it separately. We contend that it is secondary to something for which theft does not warrant cutting, so it resembles the clothing of an adult; furthermore, the hand of the child is upon what they are wearing, evidenced by the fact that whatever is found with a foundling (laqit) belongs to them. Similarly, if an adult is sleeping on their belongings and someone steals them along with their belongings, they are not cut, because their hand is upon them.

Section: If one steals a small slave, the cutting punishment applies according to the majority of scholars. Ibn al-Mundhir said: All the scholars whom we have memorized this from have reached a consensus on this, among them al-Hasan, Malik, al-Thawri, al-Shafi'i, Ishaq, Abu Thawr, Abu Hanifa, and Muhammad. The young [slave] for whose theft the thief is cut is the one who does not distinguish; if they are older, the thief is not cut, unless they are sleeping, insane, or a foreigner (a'jami) who does not distinguish between their master and someone else in terms of obedience, in which case the thief is cut. Abu Yusuf said: The thief of a slave is not cut even if they are small, because if someone is not cut for stealing them as an adult, they are not cut for stealing them as a child, similar to a free person. We contend that they have stolen owned wealth whose value reaches the threshold, so the cutting punishment is mandatory, just like other animals. It differs from a free person, as the latter is neither wealth nor owned property. It also differs from an adult slave because an adult cannot be stolen; rather, they are deceived by something, unless they are in a state where their reason is absent due to sleep or insanity, in which case the theft is valid and the thief is cut. If the stolen person in their state of sleep or insanity is an umm al-walad (a slave who has borne a child for her master), there are two opinions regarding the cutting of her thief. One is that there is no cutting, because it is not permissible