if a man stole and then stole again, only one hand would be cut off. Likewise, if he drank intoxicants and then drank again, he would incur only one prescribed punishment. Prescribed punishments are incurred on account of the kind of offence, not its extent. Thus, the punishment applies whether the amount stolen is large or small, and whether the amount drunk is little or much, because what incurs it is the kind of offence, not its extent. Since the ruling does not differ according to whether the quantity is small or large, it likewise does not differ between a single occurrence and repeated occurrences, for all these differences concern quantity. The same applies to expiation for intercourse during Ramadan when a man has intercourse and then repeats it before offering expiation.

Those who hold that the two waiting periods overlap therefore say:

The waiting period of a divorced woman falls into this category, for if it is occasioned by intercourse, it is unlike the waiting period following a husband’s death, which is occasioned by the marriage contract. It is obligatory whether intercourse occurred seldom or often, because what occasions it is intercourse as such. It makes no difference whether there was one man or two. A further application of this reasoning is that if someone purchases a slave woman with whom several men have had intercourse, she need observe only one waiting period to establish that she is not pregnant, even though several men had intercourse with her.

They have, however, been challenged regarding this case. It has been said that, while she remains jointly owned by two men, she must observe one such waiting period for each of them.

If, however, they sell her to someone else, the purchaser is required to have her observe only one such period. We know of no one who has said that a slave woman acquired through capture, purchase, inheritance, or the like must observe multiple periods to ascertain non-pregnancy, corresponding to the number of men who had intercourse with her. Likewise, if a man purchases a slave woman and sells her before having her observe this period, the second purchaser is required to have her observe only one such period.

The jurists said: We do not say that he must have her observe it twice. Some justified this by saying that the requirement to ascertain non-pregnancy is occasioned by a multiplicity of ownership, whereas ownership had not become multiple. For this reason, they do not require such a period if he frees her and marries her, provided that the seller had not had intercourse with her; yet they require it if he does not free her. This is unlike the prescribed waiting period, which is occasioned by slave status. Discussion of the waiting period for ascertaining non-pregnancy belongs elsewhere.