the correct position is that the judge may merely hint to him that he may retract, yet he must not state outright, “Retract.”

If, with no suit pending, a person confesses that he has stolen the property of Zayd who is absent, the hand is not cut immediately; rather, one waits for Zayd to be present, according to the sounder opinion.

Should he confess that he coerced an absent man’s slave-girl into fornication, the ḥadd is carried out at once, on the sounder view.

Theft is proven by the testimony of two men; if only one man and two women testify, the liability for the property is established but the hand is not cut. The witness must specify all the legal conditions of theft, and if the two witnesses disagree—one saying the theft occurred in the morning and the other in the evening—their testimony is invalid.

The thief must restore what he has taken; if it has perished he must pay its value. His right hand is then severed. If, after that, he steals again, his left foot is severed; on a third offence, his left hand; on a fourth, his right foot. After the fourth offence he is punished with discretionary taʿzīr.

The stump is plunged into boiling oil or molten fat. Some say this completes the ḥadd, but the sounder view is that it is a right belonging to the amputee himself, so its cost falls on him, and the ruler may omit it.

The hand is severed at the wrist joint, and the foot at the ankle joint.

If a man has committed several thefts before any amputation is carried out, one cutting of the right hand suffices, even if four fingers of that hand are already missing.

I say: the same ruling applies, according to the preponderant view, even if the entire set of five fingers has been lost. Allah knows best.

An additional hand that has only a single finger is also cut, according to the sounder opinion. If, after stealing, his right hand falls off because of some calamity, the ḥadd is dropped; but if the left hand falls off, it is not, according to the school.