Section: If one usurps a house and secures his property within it, then a stranger or the person from whom it was usurped steals from it, there is no cutting punishment for him, because his security of the place (hirz) has no legal standing (81) when he is a transgressor and oppressor in doing so (82).

Section: If a guest steals something from his host's property, you must examine the situation: if he stole it from the place where he was accommodated or from a place that the host did not secure against him, he is not subject to the cutting punishment, because he did not steal from a secured place. If he stole from a place that was secured against him, you must examine it: if the host had denied him his hospitality (qira), and he stole only the equivalent amount, there is no cutting punishment for him either. But if the host did not deny him his hospitality, then the cutting punishment is mandatory for him. It has been narrated from Ahmad that there is no cutting punishment for the guest, which is interpreted as referring to one of the first two cases. Abu Hanifah said: There is no cutting punishment for him in any case, because the host has granted him broad access to his house and property, so he is like his child. Our evidence is that he stole property that was secured against him without having any ambiguity (shubhah) regarding it, so the cutting punishment is mandatory, just as it is for a stranger. His (Abu Hanifah's) statement (83) that the host granted him access is invalid; for the host secured this specific property against him and did not grant him access to it, and the host's granting him access to other things does not necessitate granting him access to this, just as if one gave charity to a poor person or gifted a gift to his friend; the cutting punishment for stealing from other than what he gave in charity or gifted would not be dropped.

Section: If a mudarib (an agent in a profit-sharing partnership) secures the mudarabah property, or a deposit (wadi'ah), or a loan (ariyah), or property for which he has been appointed as an agent, and a stranger steals it, the cutting punishment is mandatory for the thief. We know of no dissenter regarding this, because he stands in the place of the owner in protecting and securing the property, and his hand is like the owner's hand. If one usurps an object and secures it, or steals it and secures it, and then a thief steals it from him, the thief is not subject to the cutting punishment. Malik said: The cutting punishment is mandatory for him, because he stole a nisab from a place that is typically secured, and he has no ambiguity regarding it. There are two opinions from al-Shafi'i, corresponding to the two schools of thought. Abu Hanifah said the same as our view regarding the thief, matching their view regarding the usurper. Our evidence is that he did not steal the property from its owner, nor from one who stands in his place, so it is like finding it lost and taking it; it differs from the thief who steals from the owner or his representative, for he (the latter thief) removed the owner's hand and stole from his secured place.