they are secured. The ruling regarding other types of livestock is the same as the ruling regarding camels, according to the detail we have mentioned (72) regarding them.

Section: If one steals from a bathhouse (hammam) where there is no attendant, there is no cutting punishment for him, according to the statement of most of them. If there is an attendant there, Ahmad said: There is no cutting punishment for a thief in a bathhouse. He also said in a narration by Ibn Mansur: The thief in a bathhouse is not to be punished by cutting unless someone is sitting upon the property, similar to what was done with Safwan. This is the view of Abu Hanifa, because people are permitted to enter it, so it is treated like the theft of a guest from a house into which he is permitted to enter; also because the entry of people into it is frequent, so the attendant is unable to guard what is inside it. Al-Qadi said: There is another narration that the cutting punishment is mandatory if there is an attendant there. This is the view of Malik, al-Shafi'i, Ishaq, Abu Thawr, and Ibn al-Mundhir, because it is property that has a guardian, so the thief who steals it must be punished by cutting, just as if it were in a house. The first view is more correct. This differs from that which is in a house in the two aspects we have mentioned. As for if the owner of the garments is sitting upon them, reclining upon them, or sitting while they are in front of him, guarding them, then whoever steals them is to be punished by cutting in every case, just as the thief who stole the cloak of Safwan from the mosque while he was reclining upon it was punished. Likewise, if the deputy of the owner of the garments—whether it be the bathhouse attendant or someone else—is guarding them in this manner, the thief is to be punished by cutting, because they are secured. If they are not in that state, al-Qadi said: If the one entering removes his garments according to the established custom, and does not entrust them to anyone for safekeeping, there is no cutting punishment for their thief, nor is there any liability (ghurm) for the bathhouse attendant; because he is not a bailee (mustawda') so as to be held liable, nor are they secured such that their thief would be subject to cutting. If he does entrust them to the bathhouse attendant, he is a bailee who is required to care for them by observation and guarding; if he becomes preoccupied and neglects them, or abandons the observation of them, and they are stolen, then he is liable for the damages due to his negligence, and there is no cutting punishment for the thief, because he did not steal from a secured place (hirz). If the bathhouse attendant does attend to them with guarding and observation, and they are stolen, there is no liability upon him because of his lack of negligence, and the thief is subject to the cutting punishment because they are secured. This is the school of al-Shafi'i. The manifest position of the school of Ahmad is that there is no cutting punishment for him in this scenario either (73);