it is feared that the opportunity for its execution might be lost. It is based on strictness due to the necessity of it, and because retaliation may be due for one hand, or it may be due for two hands or more in a single instance; thus, it is permissible for us to perform two retaliations consecutively. This differs from the prescribed punishment (hadd), because every transgression has a defined limit that cannot be exceeded. If one were to perform two hudud consecutively, it would be equivalent to exceeding the prescribed limit, which is not permissible. As for highway robbers, the cutting of the hand and the foot constitutes a single prescribed punishment, unlike the case we are discussing. Regarding the delay of the prescribed punishment for illness, there is an impediment, and even if we were to grant it, the lashing punishment can be mitigated, allowing it to be performed during illness in a manner that ensures against fatality, whereas cutting cannot be mitigated.

Section: If one steals multiple times before being cut, a single cutting suffices for all of them, and their punishments merge; because it is one of the punishments of Allah the Exalted, so when the causes for it are combined, it merges, similar to the punishment for adultery (zina). The Qadi mentioned in the case where one steals from a group, and they come separately, another narration that they do not merge. Perhaps he draws an analogy to the punishment for slander (qadhf), but the correct view is that they do merge, because the cutting is purely the right of Allah the Exalted, so they merge, like the punishment for adultery and drinking. It differs from the punishment for slander, for that is the right of a human being; this is why it is dependent upon a demand for its fulfillment and lapses if pardoned. However, if one steals and is cut, then steals a second time, he is to be cut a second time, regardless of whether he stole from the person he stole from the first time or from someone else, and regardless of whether he stole that same item for which he was previously cut or something else. This is the position of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa said: If he is cut for stealing an item once, he is not to be cut for stealing it a second time, unless he was cut for stealing yarn, then stole it woven, or was cut for stealing fresh dates, then stole them as dried dates. He argued that the fulfillment of this is linked to the demand of a human being, so if its cause is repeated regarding the same item, it is not repeated, like the punishment for slander. Our counter-argument is that it is a punishment that becomes mandatory due to an act involving an item, so its repetition regarding one item is like its repetition regarding different items, such as adultery; and what he mentioned is invalidated by the case of yarn when it is woven, and fresh dates when they become dried. We do not concede the analogy to the punishment for slander, for whenever one slanders another for a different act of adultery, he is punished, and if he slanders him for the same adultery immediately after his punishment, he is not punished; because the purpose is to expose his falsehood, which has already been achieved. Here, the purpose is to deter him from theft, and he was not deterred by the first [punishment], so he is to be deterred by the second, [as he is deterred] if he steals a different item.