the sleeper and the one preoccupied. If no one is with them, they are not (66) secured, whether they are hobbled or not. As for grazing camels, their hirz is the shepherd's observation of them; whatever disappears from his sight, or he sleeps away from it, is not secured, because grazing camels are only secured by the shepherd and his observation. As for traveling camels, if there is someone with them driving them, their hirz is his observation of them, whether they are linked (67) or not (67). Whatever of them is in such a state that he does not see it is not secured. If there is a leader (qa'id) with them, their hirz is for him to look at them frequently and care for them, and to be in a position where he sees them when he looks back. Al-Shafi'i held this view. Abu Hanifa said: The leader only secures that whose rein is in his hand, because he turns his back on them and only sees them rarely, so it is possible to take them without his noticing. Our view is that the custom in guarding linked (68) camels is to care for them by looking back and holding the rein of the first one, so that is a hirz for them, just like the one whose rein is in his hand. If one steals goods of nisaab value from the packs of secured traveling camels, he is to be punished by cutting. Likewise, if he [steals the pack, and if] (69) he steals the camel with what is upon it while its owner is sleeping upon it, he is not to be punished by cutting, because it is in the hand of its owner. If [its owner is not sleeping upon it] (70), he is to be punished by cutting. Al-Shafi'i held this view. Abu Hanifa said: There is no cutting punishment for him, because what is in the pack is secured by it (the pack), so if he takes all of it, he has not violated the hirz of the goods, and it becomes as if he had stolen the parts of the hirz. Our view is that the camel is secured by its owner, and for this reason, if he were not with it, [it would not have been] (71) secured, so he has stolen it from its equivalent of a hirz, so it is similar to if he had stolen the goods. We do not concede that stealing the hirz from its hirz does not necessitate the cutting punishment, for if he stole the chest with its contents from a house in which it is secured, his cutting is mandatory. This detail applies to camels that are in the desert; as for those in houses and fortified places, in the manner we mentioned regarding garments,