The Multiplicity of Ḥadd Offenses and the Overlapping of Their Punishments in Islamic Jurisprudence

Abstract

Multiplicity of crimes is a particular legal situation in which an individual commits several offenses before being definitively convicted of any of them, and thus has not yet received punishment for any. One of the significant aspects of this study is to explore the jurisprudential rules concerning the multiplicity of crimes and the overlap of punishments, as well as to distinguish the implications of these principles in cases involving similar or dissimilar ḥadd offenses. The primary aim of this research is to examine the multiplicity of ḥadd crimes and the overlap of their punishments from the perspective of Islamic jurisprudence. The central question it seeks to answer is: What is meant by the multiplicity of crimes and overlapping punishments in Islamic jurisprudence, and what are their legal implications? This study employs a content analysis method and is based on library research, drawing upon authoritative sources in both Islamic jurisprudence and legal theory. The findings reveal that, according to Islamic jurists, if a person commits multiple offenses of the same kind before the execution of a ḥadd punishment, only one ḥadd is deemed sufficient. Moreover, in cases involving dissimilar ḥadd offenses that are purely ḥuqūq Allāh (rights of God) and do not involve murder, all punishments are to be executed by consensus of the jurists. However, if murder is involved, Abū Ḥanīfa and some scholars of the Ḥanbalī school hold that only qiṣāṣ (retribution) should be applied and the rest of the punishments waived. In contrast, the Mālikī school holds that all ḥadd punishments and qiṣāṣ are dropped except for the punishment of false accusation (qaḏf), while al-Shāfiʿī believes that all ḥadd punishments should be enforced