that from the slave. Furthermore, judgment against an absent party based on evidence is permissible, according to what is known in its proper place.

Section: If a slave confesses to the theft of property in his possession, but his master denies it, saying: "This is my property," then the property belongs to his master, and the slave is to be punished by amputation. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa said: There is no amputation for him, because his theft of the property was not established, so the punishment of amputation is not obligatory, just as if the person from whom the property was stolen had denied it. Moreover, (9) if his confession is not accepted regarding the property, then regarding a hadd punishment, which is warded off by ambiguities (shubuhat), it is even more so. Our evidence is that he confessed to the theft, and the person from whom the property was stolen confirmed it, so he is to be punished by amputation, like a free person. It is also possible that amputation is not obligatory, because the hadd punishment is warded off by ambiguities, and the fact that the property is legally adjudged to his master constitutes an ambiguity.

Section: A Muslim is to be punished by amputation for the theft of the property of a Muslim or a Dhimmi (a protected non-Muslim citizen), and a Dhimmi is to be punished by amputation for the theft of the property of either of them. This is the view of al-Shafi'i and the scholars of reasoning (Ashab al-Ra'y), and we know of no opponent in this. As for the Harbi (a non-Muslim from an active war zone) who enters our territory under a pledge of safety (musta'man) and commits theft, he is also to be punished by amputation. Ibn Hamid said: He is not to be punished by amputation. This is also the view of Abu Hanifa and Muhammad, because it is a hadd punishment of Allah the Almighty, so it should not be applied to him, like the hadd for adultery. Ahmad has explicitly stated that the hadd for adultery is not to be applied to him. Al-Shafi'i has two opinions, corresponding to the two schools of thought. Our evidence is that it is a hadd for which one is held accountable, so it is obligatory upon him, like the hadd for false accusation (qadhf). This is confirmed by the fact that amputation is obligatory to preserve property, and the hadd for false accusation is obligatory to preserve reputations. Thus, if one of them is obligatory in his case, the other is also obligatory. As for the hadd for adultery, it is not obligatory because his killing is required due to his violation of the covenant, and no other hadd is required alongside killing. Once this is established, the Muslim is to be punished by amputation for the theft of his property. According to Abu Hanifa, it is not obligatory. Our evidence is that he stole protected property from a safe enclosure similar to his own, so his amputation is obligatory, like the thief of a Dhimmi's property. The apostate is to be punished by amputation if he commits theft because the rulings of Islam remain applicable to him.

1584 - Issue: He said: (The thief is to be punished by amputation even if the stolen property was gifted to him after he had removed it.)

The summary of this is that if the thief gains ownership of the stolen item through a gift, a sale, or any other means of ownership,