Punifhment is
due upon a
üngle confeflion
;
and alfo upon
the teftimony
o f t<vj.o eivit-
n*ßj'
■Amputation Is to be inflidled upon a Angle confeflion, according
to Haneefa and Mahommed. Aboo Toofaf i,ays that the limb of a
thief is not to be ftruckoff upon ;a lingle confeflion, nor until the
confeflion be twice repeated: and it is alfo recorded from Aboo Toofaf
that the confeflion muft be made twice at two feparate fittings [of the
Kdzee's.court,,] becaufe confejjion is proof as well as.evidence., and is
thereforefubjedl to a fimilar rule; and as, in evidence, two witnefles
are indilpenfable, do in confeflion, repetition is required; as in whoredom,
(for inftance) where, confeflion being held luhjedt to the rule of
evidence, four confejjions are,required, in the fame manner asfour wit-
nejfes. Theargumentof Haneefa and Mohammed is that theft is rendered
apparent by a Angle confeflion, which therefore fuffices, in the fame
manner as in cafes of retaliation, or punifhment for {lander; and there is
no ground to judge concerning this from the rule in evidence, fince by
the abundance of witnefles, in evidence, the fufpicion of falfity is
leflened with refpedt. to the witnefles; but a repetition of confeflion
is altogether ufelefs, fince no fufpicion exifts with refpedl to the per-
fon confefling, which might be leflened by a repetition of his confeflion
: neither is this repetition of any advantage in precluding a
fubfequent retradlation, as the door of retradlation er denial, in a cafe
of punifhment, is not fhut by a repetition of confeflion; and in a cafe
.of property, retradlation or denial are not admitted after confeflion,
although it ,be only once made, becaufe .the proprietor is ready to dif-
prove i t : and the rule of repetition .of confeflion, in whoredom, is
contrary to analogy, wherefore* confeflion in theft cannot be judged
upon the fame principle.
A mputation is tohe inflidled upon the teftimony of two witnefles,
becaufe by the teftimony of two witnefles the theft is made apparent,
;and fully .eftablifhed, in the fame manner as in all matters of right. But
•<it is incumbent on the magiftrate to examine the witnefles concerning
the manner of the theft, and alfo the time and place, for the greater
caution, as was mentioned in treating of whoredom. The thief muft
alfo
alfo be held in confinement, on fufpicion, until the witnefles be fully
examined.
If a party commit a theft, and each of the party receive ten dir ms,
the hand of each is to be cut off; but if they receive lefs than ten
dirms each, they are not liable to amputation, becaufe the occafion
thereof is ftealing to the amount'which conftitutes larcinyy namely,
ten dirms: amputation, moreover, is to be inflidled upon each on account
of his offence, wherefore regard is had, with refpedl to each, to
the complettenefs of the ftandard amount of theft, which is ten dirmst-
G II A P. II.
O f Thefts w h ich occafion Amputation, and o f Thefts
w h ich do not occafion it.
A mputation is nofincurred by the theft of any thing of a trifling
nature, and the ufe of which is allowed among. Muffitlmans, fuch as
wood, bamboos, grafs, flfh,fow Isi and ‘gjzrden-Jluff;— becaufe AyCefba
has faid that in the time of the prophet this punifhment was not inflidled
for fuch petty thefts; and'alfo, becadfe people are little
intereftedin things which, although in their OWn nature lawful, yet
are in no refpedt particularly defirable : befides, men mot coveting
thefe things,, it is not probable that any one fhould take them without *
the owner’ s confent ; it is therefore not requifite to make examples,
in order to deter people from fuch thefts; (whence it is‘th-at amputation
is not'incurred by a' theft'of lefs than tenldirntsi) . Cuflody, moreover,
with refpedl to fuch articles, is defective, .infomuch that pieces of
timber (for inftance)jare thrown down without the door, and are not
brought;
A number
concerned in
one faft are
all equally- '
liable to pu- ■
nifhment.'
Amputation is
not incurred
by ftealing
things of
trifling yalue>