its value reaches the nisaab (minimum amount), therefore the cutting punishment is mandatory for its theft, just like books of jurisprudence. There is no disagreement among our colleagues regarding the obligation of the cutting punishment for the theft of books of jurisprudence, hadith, and other Islamic sciences. If the Mushaf is adorned with ornamentation reaching the nisaab, two views are derived for those who do not consider the theft of a Mushaf to incur the cutting punishment. One of them is that he is not subjected to cutting; this is the analogy of the opinion of Abu Ishaq ibn Shaqla and the school of Abu Hanifa, because the adornment is subservient to that which does not incur the cutting punishment for its theft, resembling the clothes of a free person. The second is that he is subjected to cutting, which is the opinion of the Qadi, because he stole a nisaab of gold/silver ornament, so his cutting is mandatory, just as if he had stolen it separately. The basis for these two views is the one who steals a child wearing ornaments.

Section: If one steals an item that is part of a waqf (endowment), the cutting punishment is mandatory upon him, because it is owned by the beneficiary of the endowment. It is possible that the cutting punishment is not applied, based on the view that the beneficiary of the endowment does not own the endowed property. The fourth condition is that he steals it from a secure place (hirz) and removes it from it. This is the opinion of the majority of scholars, and it is the school of 'Ata', al-Sha'bi, Abu al-Aswad al-Du'ali, 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz, al-Zuhri, 'Amr ibn Dinar, al-Thawri, Malik, al-Shafi'i, and the People of Opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y). We do not know of any scholar who disagrees with them, except for a statement narrated from 'A'isha, al-Hasan, and al-Nakha'i regarding one who collects the property but has not yet removed it from the secure place, that he incurs the cutting punishment. From al-Hasan, there is a narration similar to that of the group. It is narrated from Dawud that he does not consider the secure place (hirz) a condition, because the verse does not contain that detail. These are anomalous (shadh) views that are not established from those to whom they are attributed. Ibn al-Mundhir said: There is no established report regarding this, nor is there any statement from the scholars except what we have mentioned, so it is like consensus, and consensus is a proof against those who oppose it. 'Amr ibn Shu'ayb narrated from his father, from his grandfather, that a man from Muzayna asked the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) about fruits, and he said: "Whatever is taken from outside its coverings (akmam) and carried away, for it is its value and the like of it with it, and what was in the drying floor (jarin), for it is the cutting punishment if it reaches the value of a shield."