Continuation of the explanation of the author's statement: "Or two confessions, and he is not to be retracted from his confession until it is severed"

The Shaykh : Because he stole his money, we asked him, "Okay, what is your money?" He said, "My money is this specific item, and I described its characteristics as such and such, its number as such and such, and its color as such and such, and he explained it clearly and distinctly." So we said to the defendant, "Come, this man says you stole it." He said, "I never stole it, and I have nothing of his, never." Then we found this stolen item, according to the plaintiff's description, in his possession. This is a circumstance indicating that he is a thief, or is it not?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Yes, and the man denied the theft and did not claim anything else, so the hadd is established against him and his hand is cut off. This is the choice of a large group of scholars who said that this is of the same kind as when a man vomits intoxicants, in which case the hadd is applied to him, as has passed. Now, if the thief claims that he took this money as a loan, or that he took it by sale, saying, "Yes, I took it from him as a loan, or I took it by sale, or I took it as a gift," then this is a shubhah (doubtful matter) that prevents the establishment of the hadd, just as we mentioned regarding a woman who gave birth and had no husband or master, then claimed that someone else forced her, in which case she is not subjected to the hadd.