they say “until,” the disagreement is weak. But this is not a consistent rule.

If a slave steals from his master’s property, or a master from the property of his contractually emancipated slave, …

His statement, “If a slave steals from his master’s property,” means that his hand is not amputated. The element of doubt is maintenance and the freedom customarily allowed him in using the property. This discussion concerns property that has been secured. As for property that has not been secured—for example, if this slave has the keys to the storehouses and steals from them—there is no amputation, because one of the prior conditions is that the theft be from secured property. If the master has given him the keys, that means he has authorized him to access the property. But the author is discussing the case where the property is secured: is the slave subject to amputation or not?

The author says that he is not subject to amputation. The element of doubt here is that the slave has a degree of freedom in using his master’s property, and that his maintenance is obligatory upon his master. The master may be negligent in providing for him, leading the slave to steal.

If a master steals from his slave’s property, he is likewise not subject to amputation. According to our school of law, however, a slave does not own property even if ownership is granted to him, based on the Prophet’s statement: “Whoever sells a slave who possesses property, his property belongs to the one who sold him, unless the buyer stipulates otherwise.” (1) He said, “his property belongs to the one who sold him”; thus, the slave does not own it. The property in his possession, over which he disposes, is not at his disposal as an owner, but rather by virtue of a special entitlement.

His statement, “or a master [steals] from the property of his contractually emancipated slave”: the contractually emancipated slave is the slave who