that a confession be repeated, nor that the confessor persist in it. If he confesses even once, the prescribed punishment is carried out upon him, provided that the conditions for a valid confession are fulfilled: that he be an adult, of sound mind, and acting voluntarily.

Is there a third means by which theft may be established?

According to the madhhab, there are no means of establishing theft other than these two. Some scholars, however, added a third means: that the stolen property be found with the thief, unless he claims a doubtful circumstance that averts the prescribed punishment.

For example, someone claims that another person stole his property. We ask him, “What is your property?” He replies, “It is this particular item,” identifying it, describing it as such-and-such, giving its serial number, its color, and providing a clear and explicit description. We then say to the defendant, “This man says that you stole it.” He replies, “I did not steal it, and I have none of his property whatsoever.” Then we find the stolen item in his possession, matching the claimant’s description.

This is an indication that he is a thief. Thus, the prescribed punishment is carried out upon him and his hand is cut off. This is the view chosen by a large number of scholars. They said: this is akin to the case of a man who vomits wine, for he is subjected to the prescribed punishment, as mentioned previously.

But if the thief claims that he acquired this property as a loan, through a sale, or as a gift, then this is a doubtful circumstance that prevents implementation of the prescribed punishment. This is like the case we mentioned of a woman who becomes pregnant although she has neither a husband nor a master, then claims that someone else forced her; she is not subjected to the prescribed punishment.

The seventh condition is the author’s statement:

“And that the person from whom it was stolen demand his property, ………………..”

“And that the person from whom it was stolen demand his property.” If he does not demand it, the thief’s hand is not cut off, even if the theft has been established, so long as its owner has not made a claim. The evidence is