Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (14/359)

As for analogy, they say: because this is a prescribed punishment involving irreversible bodily loss, repetition is more warranted here than in zina, which does not involve such loss except in the case of a married offender.

But this is not correct, because when the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said to him, “I do not think you have stolen,” he meant thereby to ascertain the matter. A person’s own statement is established against him by his testimony against himself. Allah the Exalted says:

“O you who believe! Stand firmly for justice, as witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves.” [al-Nisa’ 4:135]

We have previously explained that repeating a confession is not a condition in cases of the prescribed punishment for zina. This case is therefore similar, and even more deserving of that ruling. Hence, stipulating repetition of the confession here is one of the distinctive positions of the school of Imam Ahmad, as mentioned by the author of al-Insaf.

His words, “or by a confession made twice,” are intended to clarify the minimum requirement: namely, a confession no fewer than two times. If it is made more often, that is stronger.

The second condition is persistence, to which the author alludes in his words:

“And he must not retract his confession until the amputation is carried out.”

The verb “retract” is put in the accusative because it is coordinated with a pure noun. Ibn Malik said:

When a verb is coordinated with a pure noun,
it is put in the accusative, whether an is explicit or omitted.

An example is the poet’s words:

To wear a cloak and have my eye find comfort
is dearer to me than wearing fine garments.

The explicit noun is “his confession,” and “he must not retract” means: and his not retracting it. It may also be read in the nominative, on the basis that it begins a new clause.

That is, he must not withdraw his confession until the prescribed punishment has been carried out upon him. They analogized this to zina, though it has previously been explained that the preponderant view is that it is not

والقياس: قالوا: لأن هذا حد يتضمن إتلافاً، فكان أحقَّ بالتكرار من الزنا الذي لا يتضمن الإتلاف إلا في المحصن. ولكن هذا ليس بصحيح؛ لأن قول الرسول ﷺ له: «ما إخالك سرقت» أراد بذلك الاستثبات، والقول يثبت على الإنسان بشهادته على نفسه، قال تعالى: ﴿يَاأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا كُونُوا قَوَّامِينَ بِالْقِسْطِ شُهَدَاءَ لِلَّهِ وَلَوْ عَلَى أَنْفُسِكُمْ﴾ [النساء: ١٣٥]، وقد سبق لنا بيان أن تكرار الإقرار ليس بشرط في باب حد الزنا، فهذا مثله وأولى؛ ولذلك كان اشتراط تكرار الإقرار هنا من مفردات مذهب الإمام أحمد، كما ذكره صاحب الإنصاف. وقوله: «أو إقرار مرتين» مراده بيان الأقل أي: إقرار لا ينقص عن مرتين، فإن زاد كان أقوى. الشرط الثاني: الاستمرار، وإليه أشار المؤلف بقوله: «وَلَا يَنْزِعَ عَنْ إِقْرَارِهِ حَتى يُقْطَعَ» ونصبت «ينزع»؛ لأنه عطف على اسم خالص، قال ابن مالك: وإن على اسمٍ خالصٍ فعلٌ عطفْ … تنصبه أن ثابتاً أو منحذفْ وشاهده قول الشاعر: ولبسُ عباءةٍ وتقرَّ عيني … أحبُّ إلي من لُبس الشفوف والاسم الصريح هو «إقراره» ولا ينزع أي: وعدم نزعه، ويجوز الرفع على أنها استئنافية. والمعنى أي: لا يرجع عن إقراره حتى يتم عليه الحد، وقاسوا ذلك على الزنا، وقد سبق أن القول الراجح أنه لا