What is the ruling regarding a proven thief who subsequently denies the theft?
Chapter on Amputation in Theft
Al-Mughni
Book of Ḥudūd (Prescribed Penalties)
Primary text
If a person's theft is established by just evidence (bayyinah 'adilah), subsequent denial by the accused is disregarded. If the accused demands to swear an oath regarding the theft (that he did not steal), the oath is not administered because establishing the theft via evidence is paramount, and administering an oath would undermine the established testimony. This ruling is the explicit position of Al-Shafi'i, aligning with one narration from Ahmad.
Supporting text
The ruling that the oath is not administered to the accused thief is the preferred position because the core principle dictates that prescribed punishments (Hudud) are averted by doubt (shubuhat). It is noted that this outcome, which results in the potential non-execution of the prescribed penalty, is permissible, similar to how requirements for establishing Zina prohibit the implementation of the prescribed penalty even if the evidence meets the legal threshold for testimony.