Section: If one steals a cross of gold or silver that reaches a nisab, connected together, then al-Qadi said: There is no amputation for it. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa. Abu al-Khattab said: Its thief is to be amputated. This is the madhhab of al-Shafi'i. The basis for both schools is what has already preceded. The difference between this issue and the one before it is that in the previous one, it is permissible for him to break it in such a way that no value remains that would reach a nisab, whereas here, even if the gold or silver were broken in any manner, its value would not fall below the nisab. Furthermore, in gold and silver, the substance itself dominates the forbidden craftsmanship; thus, the craftsmanship is eclipsed relative to the value of its substance. Others are different from them, as the craftsmanship is dominant in them, making it dependent on the forbidden craftsmanship, thus it resembles a vessel. If one steals a vessel made of gold or silver whose value reaches a nisab when broken, then amputation is mandatory; because there is no consensus on its prohibition, and its value without the disputed craftsmanship is a nisab. If one steals a vessel prepared for containing wine and placing it therein, then amputation applies; because there is no prohibition in the vessel itself, and it is only prohibited for him due to his intention and purpose. This resembles the case of stealing a knife prepared for slaughtering swine, or a sword prepared for highway robbery. If one steals a vessel containing wine that reaches a nisab, Abu al-Khattab said: Amputation applies. This is the madhhab of al-Shafi'i; because he stole a nisab from a place where such things are guarded, without any doubt regarding it. Others of our companions said: There is no amputation; because it is incidental to that which does not entail amputation, resembling the case of stealing something shared between himself and another. Abu Ishaq ibn Shaqla said: If one steals a water skin or a vessel containing water, there is likewise no amputation for it. If one steals a handkerchief that has a dinar tied into its end, and he knew of it, then amputation is mandatory. If he did not know of it, there is no amputation; because he did not intend its theft, resembling the case of it catching onto his garment. Al-Shafi'i said: He is to be amputated; because he stole a nisab, resembling the case of someone who steals something without knowing that its value reaches a nisab. The difference between them is that in this case, he knew of the stolen item and intended its theft, unlike the dinar, for he did not want it and did not intend to take it, so he is not held accountable for it by imposing the hadd punishment upon him.