Is the amputation penalty incumbent upon enslaved men and women for theft?
Chapter on Amputation in Theft
Al-Mughni
Book of Ḥudūd (Prescribed Penalties)
Primary text
The majority of jurists and those issuing fatwas hold that their hands must be amputated for theft. Evidence supporting this includes the narration that slaves of Hatib ibn Abi Balta'ah stole a she-camel, slaughtered it, and 'Umar ordered their hands to be cut, later commuting the sentence to a heavy financial penalty for the owner. Furthermore, it is narrated that a slave confessed to theft before 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, and 'Ali amputated his hand. These widely known accounts were not refuted, indicating scholarly consensus (ijma').
Supporting text
An opposing view attributed to Ibn 'Abbas states that there is no amputation for slaves because it is a Hadd punishment that cannot be halved, and thus it is not incumbent upon them, similar to stoning (rajm). They also argue that a slave is not equal to a free person in Hadd punishments like other penalties. The rebuttal is that the general scope of the Quranic verse supports amputation, and the argument that it cannot be halved is countered by stating that it cannot be suspended either; thus, it must be fully implemented, making the analogy to stoning invalid, as the penalty for adultery does not cease in the case of a slave, whereas the penalty for theft would cease if amputation were suspended.