Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (14/264)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

of his voice that he did not commit zina? Yet we would be carrying out the prescribed punishment on him for something he denies—and the matter originated from him himself. It is therefore not possible for us to punish him while he denies it.

Fourth: They draw an analogy with the retraction of testimony. If four men testified that he had committed zina, and the judge ruled that the prescribed punishment be carried out on the basis of their testimony, then they retracted it, saying, “We testified, but we seek Allah’s forgiveness and repent to Him; we retract our testimony,” it would not be permissible to carry out the prescribed punishment on him. Their retraction impugns them, for they must have lied in one of the two testimonies: if they lied in the first, then it is not to be accepted; and if they lied in the second, then their testimony is likewise not to be accepted.

They said: This case is analogous to that one; that is, the confessor’s retraction of his confession lifts the prescribed punishment, just as the witnesses’ retraction of their testimony does.

This is the position of Imam Ahmad, Abu Hanifah, al-Shafi‘i, and Malik in some circumstances.

The Zahiris said: His retraction of his confession is not to be accepted; rather, the prescribed punishment must be carried out on him. Between us and you are the Book of Allah and the sunnah of His Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him. They said: Allah, Exalted is He, says:

“O you who believe! Stand firm for justice as witnesses for Allah, even against yourselves.” [Quran 4:135]

Thus, once he testifies against himself that he committed zina, he has upheld justice, the description of the fornicator has been truly established of him, and Allah, Exalted is He, has said:

“As for the female fornicator and the male fornicator, flog each of them a hundred lashes.” [Quran 24:2]

So how can we set aside this ruling which Allah commanded, when it is contingent upon a description established by the confession of the very person characterized by it? This is not possible, because it is a ruling contingent upon a description established by confession. As soon as the confession is established, the prescribed punishment is established; so what could lift it?

صوته إنه لم يزنِ؟! فنحن نقيم عليه الحد بأمر هو ينكره، والأمر جاء من قِبَله هو، فلا يمكن أن نحده وهو ينكره. رابعاً: القياس على رجوع البينة؛ لأنه لو شهد عليه أربعة رجال بالزنا، وحكم الحاكم بإقامة الحد بمقتضى هذه الشهادة ثم رجعوا، قالوا: شهدنا ولكن نستغفر الله ونتوب إليه، رجعنا عن شهادتنا، فإنه لا يجوز إقامة الحد عليه؛ لأن رجوع هؤلاء الشهود قدح فيهم؛ لأنهم كاذبون في إحدى الشهادتين، إن كان في الأول فهم كاذبون فلا تقبل، وإن كان في الثاني فهم كاذبون فلا تقبل شهادتهم. فقالوا: إن هذا يقاس عليه، أي: أن رجوع المقر عن إقراره يرفع عند الحد، كرجوع الشهود عن شهادتهم. وهذا هو مذهب الإمام أحمد، وأبي حنيفة، والشافعي، ومالك في بعض الأحوال. وقالت الظاهرية: لا يقبل رجوعه عن الإقرار، ويجب إقامة الحد عليه، وبيننا وبينكم كتاب الله وسنة رسول الله ﷺ، قالوا: إن الله ﷿ يقول: ﴿يَاأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا كُونُوا قَوَّامِينَ بِالْقِسْطِ شُهَدَاءَ لِلَّهِ وَلَوْ عَلَى أَنْفُسِكُمْ﴾ [النساء: ١٣٥]، فإذا شهد على نفسه بالزنا فقد قام بالقسط، وصَدَقَ عليه وصف الزاني، وقد قال الله ﷿: ﴿الزَّانِيَةُ وَالزَّانِي فَاجْلِدُوا كُلَّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْهُمَا مِئَةَ جَلْدَةٍ﴾ [النور: ٢]، فكيف نرفع هذا الحكم الذي أمر الله به مُعَلَّقاً على وصف ثبت بإقرار من اتصف به؟! هذا لا يمكن؛ لأن هذا حكم معلق على وصف ثبت بإقرار، فبمجرد ما ثبت الإقرار ثبت الحد، فما الذي يرفعه؟!