Section: It is essential that the goods be removed from the place of security (hirz), due to the consensus we have previously mentioned regarding this condition. Whenever he removes them from the place of security, the cutting punishment becomes mandatory for him, whether he carries them to his home or leaves them outside the place of security. It is the same whether he removes them by carrying them, or by throwing them outside the place of security, or by tying a rope to them (89) and then exiting and pulling them with it, or by tying them to a beast and driving it until he removes them, or by leaving them in a flowing river and then exiting with them. In all these cases, the cutting punishment is mandatory, because he is the one who removed them, either by himself or by his instrument, so the cutting punishment is due, just as if he had carried them out. It is the same whether he entered the place of security and removed them, or broke through it and then inserted his hand or a staff with a branch (90) and pulled them out with it (91). Al-Shafi'i held this view. Abu Hanifa said: There is no cutting punishment, unless the house was small and he could not enter it, because he did not break the security in the way he was able to, so he resembles a pickpocket (mukhtalis). Our evidence is that he stole a nisab from a place of security befitting it, he has no shubhah (ambiguity) regarding it, and he is a person subject to the cutting punishment, so it is mandatory for him, just as if the house were narrow; he differs from the pickpocket, for the latter does not break the security. If he threw the goods and the wind blew them and moved them out, the cutting punishment is mandatory for him, because when the initiation of the act was from him, the act of the wind has no effect, just as if he shot at game and the wind assisted the arrow until it killed the game, it would be lawful; or if he threw the pebbles at the Jamarat and the wind assisted them until they fell into the target area, it would be accounted for. This becomes like if he left the goods in water and it flowed with them and removed them. If he ordered a young child who does not discern to remove the goods, the cutting punishment is mandatory for him, because the child is an instrument for him. As for if he left the goods on a beast, and it went out by itself without being driven, or he left the goods in stagnant water and it opened and the goods went out, or on a wall in the house and the wind blew them away, there are two views regarding that: one is that the cutting punishment is mandatory, because his action is the cause of their removal (92), so it is similar to if he had driven the beast, opened the water, or released a garment into the air. The second view is that there is no cutting punishment, because the water was not an instrument for removal, but the goods were removed due to an incidental cause without his action, and the beast has its own autonomy.