The establishment of theft: Is being caught in the act a condition?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
Question:
And if one encourages disbelief, whatever Allah has declared to be disbelief, is it necessary in the aforementioned case to catch the perpetrator in the act of his crime? And is one who is caught and forced to confess considered to have confessed?
Answer:
It has been stated previously that theft is established by one of two things: either the testimony of two witnesses or a confession made twice. If two witnesses testify against him regarding theft, his hand is cut off; or if he comes and confesses twice that he stole, his hand is cut off. Therefore, it is not a requirement that he be found in the act of the crime; the testimony of witnesses or a confession is sufficient. Yes.
And if one encourages disbelief, whatever Allah has declared to be disbelief, is it necessary in the aforementioned case to catch the perpetrator in the act of his crime? And is one who is caught and forced to confess considered to have confessed?
Answer:
It has been stated previously that theft is established by one of two things: either the testimony of two witnesses or a confession made twice. If two witnesses testify against him regarding theft, his hand is cut off; or if he comes and confesses twice that he stole, his hand is cut off. Therefore, it is not a requirement that he be found in the act of the crime; the testimony of witnesses or a confession is sufficient. Yes.
Source
قناة «العلامة الدكتور صالح الفوزان»، 85 من 89|شرح العدة في شرح العمدة|كتاب الحدود|باب حد السرقة|صالح الفوزان|الفقه|كبار العلماء — youtube.com (1:13:18)
The Arabic text is a machine transcription of the audio recording.