Section: If he removes the goods from a room within the house or the inn to the courtyard, and the door of the room was locked, he having opened or breached it, then he has removed the goods from the place of security (hirz). If it was not locked, he has not removed them from the place of security. Ahmad said: If he removes (93) the goods from the room to the house, the cutting punishment is applied. This is interpreted as applying to the first case.

Section: Ahmad said: The pickpocket (tarrar) who steals secretly is subject to the cutting punishment, but if he snatches (mukhtalis) openly, he is not subject to the cutting punishment. The meaning of the tarrar is one who steals from a man's pocket, sleeve, or pouch (94). Whether he slits (95) what he took the stolen goods from, cuts the pouch to take it, or inserts his hand into the pocket to take what is inside, the cutting punishment is mandatory for him. It has been narrated from Ahmad, regarding one who takes from a man's pocket or sleeve, that there is no cutting punishment for him. Thus, there are two narrations regarding this.

Section: If the thief enters a place of security and milks milk from livestock and removes it, the cutting punishment is mandatory for him. Al-Shafi'i held this view. Abu Hanifa said: There is no cutting punishment for him because it is among the moist items. The discussion with him regarding this has already passed. If he drinks it within the place of security, or drinks an amount from it such that the remainder is less than the nisab (minimum threshold), there is no cutting punishment, because he did not remove a nisab from the place of security. If he slaughters the sheep within the place of security, or tears the garment, then removes them, and their value after the tearing and slaughtering is a nisab, the cutting punishment is mandatory for him. Al-Shafi'i held this view. Abu Hanifa said: There is no cutting punishment for him in the case of the sheep because, according to him, meat is not subject to the cutting punishment for its theft; and if most of the garment is torn, there is no cutting punishment in it, because its owner is given the choice to make him liable for its full value, such that he would have removed it while it was his own property. The discussion with him regarding these principles has already passed. If he enters the place of security, swallows a jewel, and exits, but it does not emerge, there is no cutting punishment for him, because he destroyed it within the place of security. If it does emerge, there are two views: one is that it is mandatory, because he removed it in its container, so it is similar to removing it in his sleeve. The second is that it is not mandatory, because he became liable for it upon swallowing, so it was a destruction of it, and because he was compelled to remove it, as he could not exit without it.