For the property. As for committing zina with his slave woman, the prescribed punishment (hadd) is mandatory because he has no ambiguity regarding her, unlike (the case of) property.

Section: As for other relatives, such as brothers, sisters, and others, one is to be amputated for stealing their property, and they are to be amputated for stealing his. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifah said: One is not to be amputated for theft from a relative by blood (dhu rahim), because it is a kinship that prevents marriage, permits looking (at them), and necessitates maintenance (nafaqah), thus it resembles the kinship of birth. Our argument is that it is a kinship that does not prevent the acceptance of testimony, so it does not prevent the amputation (of the hand), like the kinship of anyone else, and it is distinguished from the kinship of birth by this.

Section: If one of the spouses steals from the property of the other, if it is from that which is not kept (muhraz) away from him, then there is no amputation in it. If he steals from what she has kept (muhraz) away from him, there are two narrations. One of them is that there is no amputation for him. This is the choice of Abu Bakr and the school of Abu Hanifah, based on the statement of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) to Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-Hadrami, when he said to him: "My slave stole the mirror of my wife." He said: "Send him away, there is no amputation for him; your servant has taken your goods." And if his slave is not amputated for stealing her property, then he (the husband) is even more entitled (to the same ruling); and because each of them inherits from the other without being blocked, their testimony for one another is not accepted, and they commonly make free use of the other's property, so it resembles the parent and the child. The second (narration) is that he is amputated. This is the school of Malik, Abu Thawr, and Ibn al-Mundhir, and it is the apparent meaning of the words of al-Khiraqi, due to the general nature of the verse and because he stole property kept away from him, with no ambiguity regarding it, so it resembles a stranger. For al-Shafi'i, there are two similar narrations. A third opinion is that the husband is amputated for stealing the wife's property because he has no right to it, while she is not amputated for stealing his property because she has the right of maintenance (nafaqah) from it.

Section: There is no amputation for one who steals from the public treasury (bayt al-mal) if he is a Muslim. This is reported from Umar and Ali (may Allah be pleased with them). This is also the opinion of al-Sha'bi, al-Nakha'i, al-Hakam, al-Shafi'i, and the scholars of opinion. Hammad, Malik, and Ibn al-Mundhir said: He is to be amputated, due to the apparent text of the Book. Our argument is what Ibn Majah narrated with his chain of transmission from Ibn Abbas, that a slave from the slaves of the khums (one-fifth share) stole from the khums, and this was referred to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), but he did not amputate him and said: "God's property—some of it has stolen some of it."