‘…for fruit or palm-hearts.’ This ḥadīth has been transmitted in this unrestricted form without any additional qualification.

Abū Ḥanīfah also relies, in excluding from amputation items whose original state is publicly permissible, on the element of doubt (shubha) that clings to every potential owner; for the jurists agree that one of the conditions of the stolen property that makes amputation obligatory is that the thief have no semblance of proprietary right in it.

They then differed over what constitutes a doubt sufficient to avert the ḥadd and what does not. This very point—the absence of ownership-related doubt—is likewise one of the three conditions that must be met in the stolen article: its kind, its amount, and its ancillary conditions. A full discussion of this issue will come later.

Within this same heading—namely, consideration of the type of property stolen—they disagreed about the written Qurʾān (muṣḥaf). Mālik and al-Shāfiʿī hold that the thief’s hand is to be cut off, whereas Abū Ḥanīfah says no amputation is incurred, presumably because the muṣḥaf may not be sold or because everyone has a share in it, since it is not deemed personal property.

They likewise differed about the case of someone who steals a minor, owned, non-Arabic-speaking slave who cannot understand or comprehend speech: the majority say the thief’s hand is cut. If the stolen slave is an adult who does understand, Mālik still rules for amputation, while Abū Ḥanīfah does not.

They also disagreed over a free minor child. According to Mālik, whoever steals him is subject to amputation; according to Abū Ḥanīfah—and according to Ibn al-Mājishūn among Mālik’s own disciples—no amputation is due. Nevertheless, they all agree, as stated, that a strong claim of ownership repels the ḥadd.

Further disagreement arose over which kinds of doubtful ownership bar the ḥadd and which do not. One such case is a slave who steals his master’s property: the majority of scholars say no amputation is due, while Abū Thawr says that it is, without imposing any condition. The Ẓāhirīs hold that amputation is carried out unless the master had entrusted the slave with the property. Mālik stipulates, for the domestic servant whose punishment is to be waived, that he be personally engaged in serving his master. Al-Shāfiʿī sometimes imposed this condition and sometimes did not. The view that the ḥadd is to be waived was adopted by ʿUmar and Ibn Masʿūd—may Allah be pleased with them both—and no Companion is known to have opposed them.

Another instance concerns one spouse stealing from the other. Mālik says that if each spouse has a separate room containing his or her own possessions, the one who steals from the other is subject to amputation. Al-Shāfiʿī, as a precaution, rules that no amputation should be carried out on either spouse because of the mingling of property and the resulting doubt—though another report from him concurs with Mālik’s view, and this was the position preferred by al-Muzanī.

As for blood relatives, Mālik holds that only the father is exempt from amputation when he steals from his child’s property, based on the Prophet’s saying, “You and your wealth belong to your father.” All other relatives, in his view, are subject to amputation. Al-Shāfiʿī maintains that the direct line of ascent and descent is spared—that is, the father, grandfathers, sons, and grandsons.