Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (14/266)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

was not evidence in your favor; rather, it was evidence against you, and its being evidence against them is more likely than its being evidence for them. For the Prophet’s acknowledgment that he would repent is proof that the sin was established in his case. Had that removed the consequence of his confession, the ruling of the sin would likewise have been removed from him.

For this reason, if a man came to us confessing that he had committed zina and requesting that the prescribed punishment be carried out on him, then, once we had prepared the means of carrying it out and brought the stones to stone him, he looked at the stones and said, “Let me repent to Allah,” what would we say to him? We must let him repent to Allah, because the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “Why did you not leave him, so that he might repent and Allah would accept his repentance?” At that point, we would let him repent, and Allah would accept his repentance.

But if he said, “I did not commit zina,” his statement would not be accepted, because he is seeking to ward off from himself a description that was established by his own confession. If we were to accept an offender’s retraction of his confession, no prescribed punishment would ever be carried out in this world, because everyone who knows that he is about to be subjected to the prescribed punishment might retract—unless Allah wills otherwise—as Shaykh al-Islam, may Allah have mercy on him, indicated in al-Fatawa. Every person fears punishment. At first, he may have resolved to purify himself through the punishment, but if it is delayed, he will say that he did not do this thing. Thus, there is a very clear difference between retracting one’s confession and withdrawing one’s request for the prescribed punishment to be carried out.

As for your claim that it may be analogized to testimony, this is an exceedingly weak analogy. For witnesses may err or act wrongfully: they may err by thinking that this man is the one who committed zina, when it was someone else who did so, though that other person resembled him. They may be firmly convinced that this is the man and testify according to what they believe, whereas in reality it was someone else. This is possible, but is it possible for a person

لم يكن دليلاً عليكم، لم يكن دليلاً لكم، وكونه دليلاً عليهم أقرب من كونه دليلاً لهم؛ لأن إقرار الرسول ﷺ أنه يتوب دليل على ثبوت الذنب في حقه، ولو كان ذلك يرفع مقتضى إقراره لارتفع عنه حكم الذنب. ولهذا لو جاءنا رجل يقر بأنه زنا ويطلب إقامة الحد، ولما هيأنا الآلة لنقيم عليه الحد، وأتينا بالحصى لأجل أن نرجمه، ونظر إلى الحصى، فقال: دعوني أتوب إلى الله؛ ماذا نقول له؟ يجب أن ندعه يتوب إلى الله؛ لأن الرسول ﷺ قال: «هلا تركتموه يتوب فيتوب الله عليه»، وحينئذٍ ندعه يتوب، فيتوب الله عليه. أما لو قال: ما زنيت، فلا يقبل؛ لأن هذا الرجل يريد أن يدفع عن نفسه وصفاً ثبت عليه بإقراره، ولو أننا قلنا بقبول رجوع الجاني عن إقراره لما أقيم حدٌّ في الدنيا؛ لأن كل من يعرف أنه سيحد ربما يرجع، إلا أن يشاء الله، كما أشار إلى ذلك شيخ الإسلام ﵀ في الفتاوى، فكل إنسان يخشى من العقوبة، وكان في الأول عنده عزم أن يطهر نفسه بالعقوبة، ولكن تأخر، فسيقول: ما حصل منه هذا الشيء، فهناك فرق بين الرجوع عن الإقرار، والرجوع عن طلب إقامة الحد، وهو ظاهر جداً. وأما قولكم: إنه يقاس على الشهادة فهذا قياس في غاية الضعف؛ لأن الشهود خطؤهم أو عدوانهم ممكن، خطؤهم بحيث يظنون أن هذا الرجل هو الذي زنا وهو غيره، لكنه شبيه به، فيعتقدون اعتقاداً جازماً أن هذا هو الرجل، فيشهدون على ما اعتقدوه، والواقع أنه غيره، وهذا يمكن، لكن هل يمكن للإنسان