must have their hands cut off for theft, except what was narrated from Ibn Abbas that he said: There is no cutting for them (4), because it is a hadd punishment that cannot be halved, so it is not obligatory in their case, like stoning; and because it is a hadd, so the slave is not equal to the free person in it, like all other hadd punishments. Our evidence is the generality of the verse, and al-Athram narrated that some slaves belonging to Hatib ibn Abi Balta'a stole a camel belonging to a man from the Muzayna tribe and slaughtered it. Kathir ibn al-Salt ordered that their hands be cut off, then Umar said: "By Allah, I see you (5) making them hungry, but I will surely impose a fine on you that will be burdensome for you." Then he said to the Muzani: "What is the value of your camel?" He said: "Four hundred dirhams." Umar said: "Give him eight hundred dirhams (6)." Al-Qasim (7) narrated from his father that a slave confessed to theft before Ali, and he cut off his hand (8). In another narration, he said: "He was a slave," meaning the one whom Ali cut off. This was narrated by Imam Ahmad in his chain of narration. These are widespread cases that were not denied, and thus they constitute consensus. As for their statement: "It cannot be halved," we say: It cannot be suspended either, so it must be completed. And we reverse their analogy against them, by saying: It is a hadd punishment, so it is not suspended in the case of the slave or the slave woman, just like other hadd punishments. It differs from stoning, for the hadd of the adulterer is not suspended by its suspension [in the case of a slave], unlike the cutting [of the hand], for the hadd of theft is suspended by its suspension.

Section: The runaway slave (abiq) is cut off for his theft, as is anyone else. This was narrated from Ibn Umar and Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, and it is the view of Malik and al-Shafi'i. Marwan, Sa'id ibn al-'As, and Abu Hanifa said: He is not cut off; because cutting him off constitutes a judgment against his master, and one may not judge against an absent party. Our evidence is the generality of the Book and the Sunnah, and that he is a legally responsible person (mukallaf) who stole a threshold (nisab) from a safe enclosure (hirz) similar to his own; therefore, he is cut off, just like someone who is not a runaway slave. Their statement that it is a judgment against his master is not accepted, for the master's confession is not considered in it, nor does his denial cause harm. Rather, what is considered