The Feasibility of Rule-formation toward Confession in Non-sexual Hudud

The significant point regarding the proof of non-sexual hudud (pandering, qadhf, wine drinking, theft, muharebeh, insulting the prophet Muhammad, magic, and irtidad) is whether two confessions are required or merely one confession is sufficient? Is there a general rule regarding the above hudud, or the rules vary from one hadd to another? This argument can be presented in two aspects: general evidence for all the hudud, and particular evidence for each one of the hudud. In general evidence, apart from Al-dar’ (the prevention rule), there is no valid reason that necessitates two confessions or suffices one confession. Al-dar’ can also be useful in case of doubt and if there is no evidence to remove doubts. The particular evidence is also not valid for the above cases, yet there are some traditions with respect to theft that if their reputation can make up for their lack of validity, then two confessions are required. Thus, it is possible to resort to priority analogy in those hudud that are severe than theft, but if the above reasoning is not accepted, it is not possible to act accordingly. Finally, most fuqahā's fatwas imply that there must be two confessions and one confession cannot be sufficient in removing the doubts and Al-dar’ rule necessitates two confessions in all the mentioned hudud.