Özet:

Abstract: One of the main purposes of the purposes of Islamic Law is to protect certain values in order to sustain the existence of social life in order and order. These values are religion, life, generation, reason and possessions. Shari' put particular punishments for crimes committed against these values. These punishments are called hadd. In order to apply hadd (punishments) the crime must be proved without doubt. That’s why if there is doubt about the crime, the hadds can not be inflicted. Suspect's retraction of his confession is the main reason leads to the doubt. The jurists disagreed about whether the hadd become invalidated dues to a retraction of the confession. While the majority agreed that hadd is invalidated by the retraction of the confession, especially in the matters directly related to Allah, some claimed that they would not be invalidated. The majority adopted that the judge’s suggestion to the suspect retracting his confession is recommended. Nevertheless, it was also agreed that the hadd (punishment) of slandering and the penalty of killing cannot be invalidated by a retraction of the confession. Summary: One of the general purposes of Islamic Law comes the protection of certain values in order to sustain the existence of social life in order and order. These values are religion, life, generation, reason and goods. The protection of these values is the basic human rights. Because the happiness of man in the world depends on the preservation of these values. When these are not protected, the order of the society is degraded. Eventually, people lose their worldly happines as well as they lose their ethereally happines. For this reason, the Shariʿa (God) put particular penalties for crimes committed against these values. In Islamic Law, these certain penalties put by Shariʿa (God) are called hadd (pl. hadds). The Islamic jurists have divided legal punisments to six categories: punishment of adultery, punishment of stealing, punishment of slandering men, punishment of drinking alcohol, punishment of inebriation and punishment of cutting road, and they have called them al-hudūd al-hālisa. These punishments have been legitimized in order to provide a number of benefits to the servants, such as preserving the generations of people, their lives, their goods, their honor and their minds. According to Islamic law, in order to inflict these legal punishments, it is necessary to prove the crime so that there is no possiblity of doubt. Because if there is any doubt about the occuring of the crime, the legal punishments can not be inflicted. At the head of the doubts about the occuring of the crime comes the suspect's retraction of his confession. But the Islamic jurists have disagreed about whether the legal punishments become invalidated or not with suspect’s retracting of his confession. Osman al-Battī (143/760 [?]), Ibn Abu Laila (148/765) and the followers of Davud ibn ʿAlī (270/884) claimed that the legal punishments would not be invalidated by suspect’s retraction of his confession. The majority of the Islamic jurists included in the imams of the four sects, by observing the individual and the public interest, agreed on that legal punishments become invalidated with the suspect’s retraction of his confession for the crimes of adultery, stealing, cutting road and drinking alcohol within the framework of the fixed evidences in this context. Corresponding to this, they also agreed on the subject that the legal punishments of slandering men, paying the stolen goods, at the same time, the penalties of killing the passengers and the paying goods taken from them would become invalidated by retraction of the confession in the cases of cutting road.  At the same time, the Islamic jurists have disputed whether the judge will be able to recommend to the suspect retracting his confession in criminal cases. Some of the jurists like Ibn Hazm refuses the opinion that it is permissible for Judge to reccomend retracting to the suspect of his confession. Corresponding to this, the majority of the Islamic jurists including the sectarian imams of four sunnah sects, have adopted the opinion that the recommendation of the judge to the suspect to give up from his confession was recommended in the cases of legal punisments of adultery and stealing. Because The prophet and many of His companions had recommended the suspect to retract his confession in the cases of adultery and stealing. But there are no statements of Islamic jurists about whether or not the judge should recommend suspect to retract his confession in the criminal cases other than adultery and stealing. It is possiple to say that the judge may recommend the suspect to return from his confession as long as the crime is not repeated in the case of crimes which are considered to be the right of publicity, like qualified looting that means cutting roads and drinking drunk beverages as compared with the tradition of the Prophet about the circumcision of the adultery and stealing. Because, the majority of the Islamic jurists agreed on retracting the confession is valid in these cases. It is also accepted that the judge may recommend the suspect to retract his confession when it is permissible. Corresponding to this, it is necessary to note that it is not permissible for the judge to recommend the suspect retracting his confession in the compensation of the goods stolen, slandering men and cruel crimes. Because these are included in the individual rights. In the cases like these, it is not valid to retract the confession. 

Anahtar Kelimeler: