especially when supporting indications are present. For example, if a man stole something, we apprehended him, and he confessed to the theft and informed us that the items he had stolen were in his possession; then, after handing over the stolen items, he said, “I did not steal them,” the correct view in this case is that he has no right to retract his confession. Rather, the prescribed punishment is to be carried out upon him.

If it is said, “The property is found in his possession,” they reply: “It is possible that the thief came and placed it in his house, or that he bought it.” According to the madhhab, however, his retraction of the confession is accepted so long as the prescribed punishment has not been carried out upon him, but his retraction is not accepted with respect to the right of another person. This is one of the matters for which Ibn Hazm strongly censured the jurists. He said: “Glory be to Allah! It is one confession, yet you say: ‘You are bound by it in this matter, but not bound by it in that matter!’ Either invalidate them both or uphold them both.”

In any event, warding off prescribed punishments on the basis of such remote doubts is far from correct. The community must be governed in a manner that prevents corruption. For this reason, the preponderant view—as will come, Allah willing—is that if a wine-drinker has been flogged three times and still does not desist, he is to be executed: unconditionally, according to the view of the Zahiriyyah; or if people cannot be restrained without execution, according to the view of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him.

Second: That four witnesses whose testimony is admissible in such a case testify against him, in one sitting, to one act of zina which they describe—whether they come to the judge together or separately. If a woman who has neither a husband nor a master becomes pregnant, she is not subjected to the prescribed punishment merely on that basis.

His statement, “Second,” means: the second means by which zina is established.

His statement, “That four witnesses whose testimony is admissible in such a case testify against him, in one sitting, to one act of zina which they describe—whether they come to the judge together or separately.”

Thus, there are five conditions: that these witnesses come to the judge who establishes