Nasai

(1) This hadith is an explicit and clear proof that pardoning each other in matters of hudud (prescribed punishments) before appearing before the ruler of the time or the court, and before presenting the accused, is a recommended and desirable act. Especially if the perpetrator is a respectable and honorable member of society who is neither a habitual criminal nor expresses pride in his deed, but rather is remorseful and ashamed of his mistake, then forgiving him is better and more virtuous.

(2) For eyewitnesses, that is, those who witnessed the incident, it is absolutely not necessary that they must go to court and testify about what they have seen. Rather, concealing the faults of a Muslim is a recommended and religiously desirable act. There are many ahadith regarding this. However, if the matter reaches the court or the ruler, then it becomes obligatory to give truthful testimony. In this situation, concealing the truth is a major sin.

(3) "Forgive the hudud," for example: let the thief go without presenting him to the court, or the witnesses against the adulterer do not go to court, or the case of the drinker is not taken to court. In such cases, the court will not forcibly take the case into its own hands. But if a case reaches the court, the accused confesses, or the witnesses testify—meaning the crime is proven—then it becomes obligatory for the court to establish the hadd (prescribed punishment). It cannot pardon it. After the crime is proven in court, even the relevant parties cannot grant pardon. However, the issue of qisas (retaliatory punishment) is an exception to this rule. If a murder case reaches the court, the witnesses testify, or the accused confesses, even if the court pronounces the death sentence, the heirs of the murdered person can still pardon the killer, even if the noose is around the killer’s neck. But at no stage can the court or the ruler of the time pardon the killer on any appeal.