What is the ruling on a slave who confesses to theft of property in his possession when his master denies it and claims ownership?
Chapter on Amputation in Theft
Al-Mughni
Book of Ḥudūd (Prescribed Penalties)
Primary text
If a slave admits to stealing property in his possession, but his master denies the theft and claims the property belongs to him, the property belongs to the master, and the slave is subject to amputation (cutting off the hand). This position is held by Al-Shafi'i. The evidence is that the slave admitted to the theft, and the owner of the stolen goods confirmed it, thus amputation is necessitated, similar to a free person.
Supporting text
Abu Hanifa holds that amputation is not required because the theft of the property by the slave was not established; therefore, the prescribed punishment is not incumbent, similar to a case where the alleged victim denies the theft. Furthermore, since the slave's admission regarding property rights is not accepted, his admission regarding a Hadd punishment, which is repelled by doubts, should be even less accepted. There is also a possibility that amputation is not obligatory because the punishment is averted by doubts, and the fact that ownership of the property is ruled to belong to the master constitutes a doubt.