Issue: Does retracting a confession require the dropping of the hudud punishment?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Now, what is your opinion regarding a man who confessed that he stole, saying, "I stole from such-and-such a shop; I stole such-and-such an item, which I described in this way, with this serial number and this model, and I described it exactly, explaining how I stole it. I said, 'I came from here, opened this door, and climbed over the wall,' describing everything. Then we found the stolen item with him exactly as he had described it. After that, he said, 'I retract my confession.'"
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Now, do we say that the generality of their statement, where they said, "The hudud punishment is not dropped from a confession until it is carried out," implies that this person, who retracted his confession, was found to have the money with him, and described the theft himself—not merely saying "I stole," but taking us to the place and showing us how he did it—do we say that the generality of the statement of the companions, meaning these jurists, implies that the hudud punishment is dropped from him because he retracted? Or do we say that their statement applies when the establishment of the theft is based solely on a confession, but when there are these circumstances he mentioned, he described the theft for us, and the money was found with him—because the author's statement is that if the issue is merely a confession, but when there are circumstances and the money is found with him, exactly as he described—do you believe, let us set aside the words of the jurists, do you believe that a man comes and says, "I stole from this shop in this manner," shows us how he stole, and we find the places as he said, struck with an axe, the box broken, and we find the stolen money he described with him—do you believe that if he says, "I did not steal," he is not a thief?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : Never.
The Shaykh : Absolutely not. No one would believe that, because it is impossible for a man to make such a claim against himself and then say, "I did not do it." There is a possibility that he did not steal, that the thief was his friend, and that his friend described the theft to him and placed the money with him as a trust. Is there a possibility of this, or not? Huh?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : It is a rationally possible scenario, but custom prevents this absolutely. It prevents a man from coming and saying, "I stole, and I did this, and I did that, and I did the other," with the money in his possession, and then saying afterward, "I retract my confession." Do you understand? Therefore, the correct view is that retracting a confession is not accepted in any case, and how much more so when it is surrounded by circumstances indicating that the retraction is a lie and that the theft actually took place.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : If he claims coercion, we say...
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, if he claims coercion and it is possible that he was coerced, we drop the hudud punishment from him, yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, correct. I forgot. Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Now, do we say that the generality of their statement, where they said, "The hudud punishment is not dropped from a confession until it is carried out," implies that this person, who retracted his confession, was found to have the money with him, and described the theft himself—not merely saying "I stole," but taking us to the place and showing us how he did it—do we say that the generality of the statement of the companions, meaning these jurists, implies that the hudud punishment is dropped from him because he retracted? Or do we say that their statement applies when the establishment of the theft is based solely on a confession, but when there are these circumstances he mentioned, he described the theft for us, and the money was found with him—because the author's statement is that if the issue is merely a confession, but when there are circumstances and the money is found with him, exactly as he described—do you believe, let us set aside the words of the jurists, do you believe that a man comes and says, "I stole from this shop in this manner," shows us how he stole, and we find the places as he said, struck with an axe, the box broken, and we find the stolen money he described with him—do you believe that if he says, "I did not steal," he is not a thief?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : Never.
The Shaykh : Absolutely not. No one would believe that, because it is impossible for a man to make such a claim against himself and then say, "I did not do it." There is a possibility that he did not steal, that the thief was his friend, and that his friend described the theft to him and placed the money with him as a trust. Is there a possibility of this, or not? Huh?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : It is a rationally possible scenario, but custom prevents this absolutely. It prevents a man from coming and saying, "I stole, and I did this, and I did that, and I did the other," with the money in his possession, and then saying afterward, "I retract my confession." Do you understand? Therefore, the correct view is that retracting a confession is not accepted in any case, and how much more so when it is surrounded by circumstances indicating that the retraction is a lie and that the theft actually took place.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : If he claims coercion, we say...
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, if he claims coercion and it is possible that he was coerced, we drop the hudud punishment from him, yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, correct. I forgot. Yes.