They also disagreed over retracting a confession. The jurists of the major centres hold that the person is to be spared the punishment and his retraction accepted. Ibn Abī Laylā and ʿUthmān al-Taymī said that his retraction is not accepted. Ibn al-Mājishūn, one of our scholars, said that he is spared if he says, “I only confessed for such-and-such a reason,” giving a plausible explanation. This is what one of Mālik’s two opinions in al-Mudawwanah implies. Al-Awzāʿī said that if someone retracts his confession, after having confessed against himself four times but before the prescribed punishment is carried out, he receives the prescribed punishment for accusing someone of unlawful intercourse, since he has accused himself. This is far-fetched. The correct position is that he is spared even if he denies ever having confessed. The basis for this is the report that “When Māʿiz ibn Mālik was being stoned and felt the stones strike him, he fled. They pursued him, and he said, ‘Take me back to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.’ They did not take him back, but stoned him to death. When the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, learned of this, he said, ‘Why did you not leave him alone? Perhaps he would have repented and Allah would have accepted his repentance.’”
In this connection, they also disagreed over a confession made through gestures by someone unable to speak. Al-Shāfiʿī and Mālik said that the prescribed punishment is carried out on the basis of his confession if his meaning is understood. Abū Hanīfah said that the prescribed punishment is not carried out on the basis of a confession made through gestures, because he cannot thereby distinguish lawful intercourse from unlawful intercourse. This is incorrect, because that distinction can be expressed through gestures in a manner that is understood and leaves no uncertainty about his meaning.
Section
As for pregnancy becoming apparent in a woman who has no publicly known husband, opinions differ. Mālik and his followers hold that this makes her liable to the prescribed punishment unless she has evidence that she married or was forced. Al-Shāfiʿī and Abū Hanīfah said that the prescribed punishment is not carried out upon her, because it is possible that she has not committed unlawful intercourse. People generally do not commit unlawful intercourse, so it should not be imputed to her without certainty. At worst, this constitutes a doubt that spares her the prescribed punishment.
This is incorrect. If this constituted grounds for doubt, then a man’s saying, when testimony is given that she committed unlawful intercourse, “She is my wife,” would likewise constitute grounds for doubt that exempted him from the prescribed punishment. Were that so, there would never be any way to carry out the prescribed punishment for unlawful intercourse. Moreover, carrying out the prescribed punishment upon her is a matter of consensus among the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, for ʿUmar ibn al-Khattāb addressed the people, saying:
“Stoning is a duty established in the Book of Allah for men and women who commit unlawful intercourse when they have been married