An Examination of the Adequacy of a Single Confession in Proving the Hadd Crimes for Qiadat, Qazf, Drinking Alcohol, and Theft

There is no doubt in the validity and authenticity of the confession as one of the arguments for proving hadd crimes, but jurists have different viewpoints in the number of confessions necessary to prove such crimes. According to most jurists' viewpoint and Islamic penal code of 2013, it is required to validate two confessions in proving the crimes of qiadat (pimping, or ‘bringing people together for zena or lavvat’ with or without payment), qazf (slanderous accusations of zena or sodomy), drinking alcohol and theft (limit of certainty). Some have considered a single confession sufficient. The origin of most jurists' viewpoint is the comparison of documents of adultery and sodomy, the lack of accuracy in the documents of the adequacy of a single confession, and the great focus on the principles and rules of hudud. The current study is finally detailed using a descriptive-analytical method after reviewing the arguments. According to this study, well-known arguments such as referring to the most jurists' fatwas, the content of narrations, the statements of Sallar Deylami and Allameh Helli, the impossibility of relying on the general rule of confession and other arguments were not enough to prove the necessity of two confessions in proving the crimes of qiadat, qazf and drinking alcohol and a single confession is sufficient. However, in proving the hadd of theft, the documents of those who believe in the sufficiency of a single confession and their problems in the common narrative issues have not been necessarily valid, so the validity of the two confessions in proving the hadd of theft remains in force.