came to him and said: A slave of mine has stolen a qaba' (outer garment) belonging to another slave of mine. He said: There is no amputation; your property has stolen your property. These are well-known cases, and no one has disagreed with them, so they constitute a consensus (ijma'). This qualifies the general (nature) of the verse, and because this is a consensus of the scholars—as they are the scholars we have named, and no one in their era disagreed with them, it is not permissible for their consensus to be opposed by the opinion of those who came after them, just as it is not permissible to abandon the consensus of the Companions due to the opinion of one of the Successors.

Section: The mudabbar (a slave granted freedom after the master's death), the umm al-walad (a slave woman who bore her master a child), and the mukatab (a slave in a manumission contract) are like the qinn (absolute slave) in this regard. This is the opinion of al-Thawri, Ishaq, Abu Thawr, and the scholars of opinion. The master of a mukatab is not to be amputated for stealing his (the mukatab's) property, because he remains a slave as long as a single dirham of the contract remains upon him. Everyone whose property, if stolen, does not result in the amputation of the perpetrator, his slave is also not to be amputated for stealing his property; such as his fathers, his children, and others. [This is the opinion of the scholars of opinion and al-Shafi'i], each according to their principles. Abu Thawr said: He is to be amputated for stealing the property of someone other than his master. A similar view is held by Malik and Ibn al-Mundhir. Our proof is the hadith of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), and because their property is placed in the same status as his property regarding his amputation, so it is the same regarding the amputation of his slave.

Section: A son, no matter how low the descent, is not to be amputated for stealing the property of his father, no matter how high the ascent. This is the opinion of al-Hasan, al-Shafi'i, Ishaq, al-Thawri, and the scholars of opinion. The apparent text of al-Khiraqi suggests that he is to be amputated, because he did not mention him among those for whom there is no amputation. This is the opinion of Malik, Abu Thawr, and Ibn al-Mundhir, due to the apparent text of the Book and because he would be subjected to the prescribed punishment (hadd) for committing zina with his father's slave woman, and would be subjected to retaliation (qisas) for killing him, therefore he should be amputated for stealing his property, like a stranger. The argument for the first view is that there is a kinship between them that prevents the acceptance of the testimony of one of them for the other, so he is not to be amputated for stealing his property, like the father; and because maintenance (nafaqah) is obligatory upon the father's property for his son to preserve him, so it is not permissible to destroy it in the name of preserving the property.