it is proven by confession, therefore repetition is not required, just like a right of a human being. Our argument is what Abu Dawood reported with his chain of narration from Abu Umayya al-Makhzumi, that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was brought a thief who had confessed, and he said to him: "I do not think you have stolen." He said: "Yes, I have." He repeated it to him twice or three times, then he ordered that he be executed, and he was amputated. If amputation were mandatory upon the first time, he would not have delayed it. Sa'id narrated from Hushaym, Sufyan, Abu al-Ahwas, and Abu Mu'awiya, from al-A'mash, from Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Qasim, from his father, who said: I witnessed Ali, and a man came to him and confessed to theft, so he turned him away. In one version: He rebuked him. In one version: He remained silent about him. Others said: He drove him away. Then he returned after that and confessed, so Ali said to him: "You have testified against yourself twice." He ordered him, and he was amputated. In one version: "You have confessed against yourself twice." Something like this is well-known and was not denied. This is because it entails destruction as part of a hadd (prescribed punishment), so repetition is one of its conditions, like the hadd of adultery. It is also because it is one of the two proofs for amputation, so repetition is required in it, just like witness testimony. Their analogy is invalidated by the hadd of adultery for those who require repetition, and it differs from a human right because the latter is based on avarice and restriction, and his retraction is not accepted, unlike our issue.

Section: It is required that he mentions in his confession the conditions of theft, such as the nisaab (minimum amount), the hirz (secure location), and removing the item from it.

Section: The free man and the slave are the same in this. Ahmad explicitly stated this because of the generality of the text regarding both of them, and because of what al-A'mash narrated from al-Qasim, from his father: that Ali amputated a slave who confessed to him regarding theft. In one narration he said: "He was a slave," meaning the one whom Ali amputated. It is required that he confesses twice. Muhanna narrated from Ahmad: If a slave confesses four times that he has stolen, he is amputated. The apparent meaning of this is that he required his confession four times so that it would be half that of a free man. The first opinion is more correct, due to the report of Ali, and because it is a confession to a hadd.