Is the prescribed punishment of amputation (*qata'*) applicable for theft committed in two separate instances that together meet the legal minimum value (*nisab*)?

Primary text

If a thief breaches a secure enclosure (*hirz*) and steals an amount less than the *nisab*, and then returns later, either at a distant time or after two nights, and steals more to complete the *nisab*, amputation is not incumbent. Each act is considered an isolated theft not reaching the threshold. This applies even if the two acts occurred on the same night but were separated by a long interval. However, if the thefts are closely connected, amputation is obligatory, as they constitute a single act of theft. The principle supports that if one partner's action builds upon another's, one person's action building upon itself is more fitting.