Is the hand of one who steals a young male slave to be amputated?
Chapter on Amputation in Theft
Al-Mughni
Book of Ḥudūd (Prescribed Penalties)
Primary text
Amputation is incumbent upon the thief of a young male slave, according to the opinion of the majority of scholars. This consensus includes Al-Hasan, Malik, Al-Thawri, Al-Shafi'i, Ishaq, Abu Thawr, Abu Hanifa, and Muhammad. The young slave whose theft warrants amputation is one who has not reached the age of discernment (la yumayyiz). If the slave is an adult, amputation is not carried out unless the adult was sleeping, insane, or a non-Arab unable to distinguish obedience to his master from others; in such cases, the thief is subject to amputation. The basis for the ruling is that a slave is property whose value reaches the threshold (*nisab*), thus necessitating amputation, similar to other animals. This differs from a free person (*hurr*) because the free person is neither property nor owned.
Supporting text
Abu Yusuf holds that the thief of a slave is not to have his hand amputated, even if the slave is young, reasoning that if the theft of an adult slave does not warrant amputation, neither should the theft of a young one, analogous to the status of a free person.