off of the hand, and liability to compensate the owner for the stolen property. Thus, the owner of the stolen property produces one man and two women who testify that so-and-so stole from him. We say: the property is established, but not the amputation. That is, we do not amputate the thief’s hand, but we hold him liable for the property. How can a single act entail two rulings, while one is established and the other is not?

The answer is that this act entails a prescribed punishment due to Allah and compensation due to the owner of the stolen property. Here, we say that the property is established but the amputation is not, because the property has the requisite number of witnesses—one man and two women—and is therefore established. As for amputation, it is a prescribed punishment that can be established only by two men, and two men are not present. Accordingly, the required number of witnesses has not been met, and the ruling is therefore divisible. This is likewise the nature of the legal principles: rulings may be divisible. Whatever has its cause established is affirmed, and whatever does not is not affirmed.

His statement: “If he produces this evidence in a case of khulʿ, the compensation is established for him, and the separation is established merely by his claim.” For example, a man claims that his wife obtained a khulʿ divorce from him in exchange for ten thousand. We say to him, “Produce the evidence.” He then produces one man and two women. We say: the payment is established, but the khulʿ is not. The payment is established because the evidence required for financial matters is present, namely one man and two women; but the khulʿ is not established, because khulʿ requires two men. Yet it is established by another means: namely, his own admission. For by claiming that she obtained a khulʿ divorce from him, he has thereby admitted it. This is why he said, “The separation is established merely by his claim,” because when he said that she had obtained a khulʿ divorce from him, this entailed separation and that she is no longer lawful for him except through a new marriage contract.

Thus, the ruling is established here through two causes: the payment is established through the testimony of the one man and two women, while the separation is established through his admission, because his claim constitutes an admission. Thus, if he claims that she obtained a khulʿ divorce from him in exchange for ten thousand riyals, and he has only