عنوان مقاله [English]
In Islamic Shari'a, on the basis of some reasons, confession is one of the evidences for proving litigation. There are different views, however, on the number of confession needed for proving offenses. Some argue that except exceptional cases, a confession is generally sufficient for proving offenses, but, others believe that proving offenses generally necessitated repetition of confession. Meanwhile, some jurisprudent and writers distinguishing Haqollah Crimes from Haqonnas ones, asserted another theory in this respect. The present article, using a descriptive-analytical method, has criticized the last viewpoint and concluded that the viewpoint has many ambiguities and challenges in fields of concepts and reasons and faces the judicial proceedings to problems if enforced.