Is punishment required based on testimony or admission regarding ancient adultery (zina)?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Ḥudūd (Prescribed Penalties)
Primary text
The prescribed punishment (hadd) is obligatory if there is testimony concerning ancient adultery or if the act is admitted. This position is held by Malik, Al-Awza'i, Al-Thawri, Ishaq, and Abu Thawr. The evidence supporting this view is the general scope of the relevant Quranic verse and the principle that this is a right established immediately, thus it remains established by evidence even after a long period, similar to all other rights.
Supporting text
Abu Hanifa holds that testimony regarding ancient adultery is not accepted, though an admission of the act necessitates the punishment. This view is also attributed to Ibn Hamid and mentioned as a position of Ahmad by Ibn Abi Musa. The basis for this dissenting opinion is a narration from Umar stating that any witnesses testifying to a punishment that they did not witness in person are merely witnesses of malice (shuhood daghin), and the delay in testimony suggests suspicion, thereby averting the punishment.