Is it taken from the story I just mentioned that it is permissible to beat or torture the accused until he confesses?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Is it taken from the story I mentioned, meaning that it is permissible to beat or torture the accused until he confesses?
The Shaykh : Yes, yes, if there is...
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : If there is a circumstantial indication, no, it is not in all cases, if there is a circumstantial indication. As for taking anyone from the market and saying you committed the crime and beating him, no. But if a circumstantial indication is found.
Just as the stronger position, without doubt, is that if a circumstantial indication pointing to the validity of his confession is found, and then he retracts his confession, it is not accepted. And this has passed us, I think, in the chapter of hudud. I mean, if a thief described the theft, saying, "I stole such and such from such and such a place and did such and such," and described it exactly, and then when he saw that he would be amputated, he said, "By Allah, I retract my confession, I did not, did not steal," we say that even if he retracts his confession, he must be amputated, because retracting a confession is only accepted where the retraction is possible. And if it is not possible, is it accepted? It is not accepted. The Shaykh al-Islam said, if retracting a confession were accepted in the chapter of hudud, no hudud would be established in the world. Every person, when he sees that they are bringing the knife to cut off his hand, would say, "Wait, I did not steal," right? Or when they are bringing the whips to beat him, he would say, "I absolutely did not do it."
The student : But after this confession, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student : I mean before the confession?
The Shaykh : Yes, even before the confession, if a circumstantial indication is found. If a circumstantial indication is found, we have the right to torture him until he confesses. Yes.
The questioner : Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Yes, yes, if there is...
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : If there is a circumstantial indication, no, it is not in all cases, if there is a circumstantial indication. As for taking anyone from the market and saying you committed the crime and beating him, no. But if a circumstantial indication is found.
Just as the stronger position, without doubt, is that if a circumstantial indication pointing to the validity of his confession is found, and then he retracts his confession, it is not accepted. And this has passed us, I think, in the chapter of hudud. I mean, if a thief described the theft, saying, "I stole such and such from such and such a place and did such and such," and described it exactly, and then when he saw that he would be amputated, he said, "By Allah, I retract my confession, I did not, did not steal," we say that even if he retracts his confession, he must be amputated, because retracting a confession is only accepted where the retraction is possible. And if it is not possible, is it accepted? It is not accepted. The Shaykh al-Islam said, if retracting a confession were accepted in the chapter of hudud, no hudud would be established in the world. Every person, when he sees that they are bringing the knife to cut off his hand, would say, "Wait, I did not steal," right? Or when they are bringing the whips to beat him, he would say, "I absolutely did not do it."
The student : But after this confession, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student : I mean before the confession?
The Shaykh : Yes, even before the confession, if a circumstantial indication is found. If a circumstantial indication is found, we have the right to torture him until he confesses. Yes.
The questioner : Shaykh?