In modern criminal law, a crime is broken down int the [actus reus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_reus) , which is the objective act the crime consists of, and [mens rea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea) , which is the criminal intention with regard to committing the actus reus. A simple example: if John goes into someone else's house, takes money from the wallet, and leaves, then these actions are the actus reus of theft, while John's intention to steal the money is the mens rea. At least with regard to the hudud, the sources I can find say the actus reus has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt for a punishment to be handed down by a qadi. This is based on a hadith that says "Ward off the hudud by means of ambiguities.", apparently found in the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shayba (specific reference I can find without being able to verify it: Ibn Abi Shayba, Musannaf, XI, 70.), the Musnad of al-Harithi, and the Musnad of Musaddad ibn Musarhad. From what i can find, the mens rea in sharia consists of - having the power to commit or not commit the actus reus (qudra) - knowing that the act was an offense ('ilm) - intending to commit the actus reus (qasd) The problem that poses itself is that we can't look into someone's head to see what someone knew or intended. 'Ilm is probably a lesser problem in hadd; very few people will be unaware that the hadd offenses are offenses, and there probably is a presumption that anyone must know these. Qasd seems more difficult to me. If John says "I thought it was my own house and my own money", does it have to be proven he didn't, or does he have to prove that he did? **Question:** How is qasd proved, who has to prove what in a criminal case if the accused claims he didn't intend the crime?

Many people consult scholars for asking questions, sometimes they even reveal their own misdeeds to these scholars in order to get a fatwa or solution to get back on the right path. My question is if a questioner revealed a crime zina, killing, robbery etc. must the mufti report this questioner to the authorities? Or can he conceal this information? What is the correct ruling on this (For example.: in what cases is it allowed to conceal and when reporting is obligatory)?

The holy and noble Qur'an tell us that we should combat injustice, corruption, etc, but we should also be just. Let's say that there's someone who goes against law to gain more money (even if it's a simple law and the person is kind of nice). Should I report him to the authorities? When should I be harsh and when to be forgiving? What is better: that I forgive him or that I report him? He will lose his job and he will have to work for 2 years without a salary if I do that.

In modern law, [attempting to commit a crime](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempt) is criminalized, in some - perhaps many, I'm not sure - legal systems to roughly the same degree as actually committing the attempted crime. However, I've never so far come across a discussion of how someone who, for exampled, tried to kill someone whose blood was illicit to shed but failed to kill him would be punished according to sharia. To give an example, one could imagine that person A tries to poison person B by inviting B to dinner and placing a poisoned cup of B's favorite beverage at B's place; before B takes a sip, A unintentionally knocks over the cup. In modern law, this would be classified as attempted manslaughter. Question: is attempting to commit a crime itself criminalized in sharia, and if so, to what degree? E.g. would attempted zina be punished in the same way zina would be punished? If attempting a crime is punishable, I expect that there will be relatively clear demarcations between attempting a crime and taking preliminary steps that do not yet count as an attempt; if that is the case, please elaborate on that too.