Book of Ḥudūd
Section: Acts that render a fornicator liable to flogging or to stoning, whether on account of ihsan or for other reasons
He therefore maintained that, of the two spouses, the one who admits intercourse is deemed muḥṣan, whereas the one who denies it is not.
Whoever commits fornication after attaining ihsan and then confesses to it once, remaining firm in that confession without retracting it, or against whom four upright witnesses testify—provided that none of them is a slave, none withdraws his testimony, they agree in every detail of what they witnessed, and they present their testimony together—the ḥadd is carried out on him: stoning with stones. The people stand around him and stone him openly, without first digging a pit. It has, however, been said that a pit may be dug for him deep enough for his feet to sink into it halfway up the shin, so that he will not escape, and that the stoning continues until he dies.
If the stoning is on the basis of his own confession, the imam begins the stoning, followed by the people. If it rests on testimony, the witnesses begin, then the people. Another opinion holds that once the imam authorises the stoning, everyone—witnesses and others alike—stones together.
If the person who confessed, or the one against whom testimony was given, is a bachelor, he is flogged one hundred lashes with a whip that has been previously used, while he sits stripped of excess clothing. The blows are of moderate force, and he is banished for a year to a place other than his home town, where he is held for the full twelve months. A woman is left clothed in garments that cover her but do not shield her from the lashes, and a free woman is not subjected to banishment, nor are slaves.
The ḥadd for a male slave or a slave-woman, whether virgin or previously married, is fifty lashes, and anyone who has any share of servile status is treated like a slave-woman in this regard.
Anyone who confesses to fornication once and persists in that confession becomes liable to the ḥadd; but if he withdraws his confession on the slightest pretext, the ḥadd is dropped. If he declares himself to have lied without invoking any such pretext, Mālik’s rulings differ: at one time he said the ḥadd should be enforced so long as no doubt has been raised; at another he said it should not be enforced, and this is the sounder view, by analogy with witnesses who retract before the sentence is executed. We have explained this fully in al-Tamhīd.