Al-Shawkānī said with regard to the hadith under discussion: “The report is suitable as evidence for the legitimacy of repelling the prescribed penalties when a plausible doubt exists—though not for every imaginable doubt.”

4 – As for the rights of human beings, they are founded on self-interest and exacting scrutiny. Therefore, if someone admits owing another person a right, he is not allowed to withdraw that confession; corroborating circumstantial evidence is acted upon; and every effort is made to restore the right to its owner when it is denied.

Shaykh ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Saʿdī, commenting on this hadith, said: “The narration indicates that the ḥudūd are averted by doubts. Thus, if a person’s case is uncertain—did he do what incurs a ḥadd or not? was he aware or ignorant? did he act upon a mistaken interpretation or believe the act to be permissible or not?—then the punishment is lifted, for we have not verified the necessary cause. Erring by withholding punishment is lighter than erring by imposing it on one who has not met its condition, for Allah’s mercy has preceded His wrath, and His law is built on ease and facilitation. This applies only to credible possibilities; as for misgivings that amount to mere illusion or fantasy, they are of no consequence.”

He further said: “The hadith also establishes a principle: when two harms, whether certain or probable, come into conflict, we give precedence to the greater harm and avert it, thereby reducing evil. Allah knows best.”