Islamic jurisprudence
حسین khodayar
Abstract
According to common jurisprudence punishments are based on a dichotomous system, they are either hadd or tazir. This dichotomy of punishment is not based on text even though there is no text about this. Rather, this is due to a kind of trap that jurists have obtained from the collection of texts in the ...
Read More
According to common jurisprudence punishments are based on a dichotomous system, they are either hadd or tazir. This dichotomy of punishment is not based on text even though there is no text about this. Rather, this is due to a kind of trap that jurists have obtained from the collection of texts in the field of punishment. The dichotomy of the penal system has caused all the punishments mentioned in the hadiths to be added to the list of hudud or punishments based on common assumptions, regardless of whether or not they have been assigned limits or punishments. In this way, in many cases, the limit of punishment is determined without any textual evidence, only with common jurisprudential concepts and considering the characteristics of that punishment. This, in turn, has been the source of many disputes about the nature of punishments; however, naturally, the ideas of jurists about the characteristics of punishments are not the same in all cases. The emergence of punishments with the title of "prescriptive punishments", which, by assumption, have similarities to the limits and punishments, is a testimony to the differences caused by the differences in the presuppositions of the jurists about the types, nature and characteristics of punishments. On the other hand, the inclusion of ambiguous punishments, which are not defined in the texts, to the list of rules and punishments, has led the jurists to a dead end in some cases. Considering the punishments of deprivation of life, life imprisonment, amputation, shaving of the head and even fines as a hadd, without the fact that there is a limit to them in the hadiths, has in some cases made it difficult for the jurists to understand the nature of the causes of these punishments. This exclusionary and inferential idea, that in particular, the death punishments o, life imprisonment, and amputation of limbs are hududd in nature and are not used as punishment in any case, has caused contradictions in some cases. For example, in the hadiths, the punishment for the crime of apostasy is death although there is no hadd for this crime. The majority of jurists, based on the aforementioned premise, consider this punishment to be a had. In the meantime, a famous jurist such as Mohaghegh Hali clearly places the crime of apostasy among the crimes subject to tazir. Then this contradiction comes to surface, is it possible that a deterministic punishment such as death is taziri? Considering the use of hadd and tazir in the Holy Qur'an and hadiths, it shows that by taking into account the usage of hadd and tazir, and based on ijtihad and methodical inference, in contrast to the idea of "dichotomous punishment in Islam", the idea of "multiplicity of punishment in Islam" can be proposed, and thus, it is removed from the list of problems and prohibitions of the Islamic penal system.
General and exclusive criminal law
Hossein Mirmohammad Sadeghi; Nastaran Aghaee; Mohammad javad Darvishzadeh
Abstract
Under Article 136 of the Islamic Penal Code (approved in 2012), the legislator has outlined the sentence of repetition in Hadd crimes. In accordance with this article, the punishment for committing a Hadd offense for the fourth time is death. However, neither the text of the law nor the legal doctrine ...
Read More
Under Article 136 of the Islamic Penal Code (approved in 2012), the legislator has outlined the sentence of repetition in Hadd crimes. In accordance with this article, the punishment for committing a Hadd offense for the fourth time is death. However, neither the text of the law nor the legal doctrine addresses the case in which there is a mistake in counting the number of times the Hadd is applied. As an example, in the event that the perpetrator is punished four times with the same Hadd punishment, the death sentence can be imposed on them the fifth time, in accordance with Article 136.The present study is intended to answer the following question: "What is the effect of making a mistake in counting the repetitions of the Hadd punishment?" There are many examples of making a mistake in counting the number of times the Hadd punishment has been enforced, and it is possible to approximate more or less the number of repetitions, even though a number of examples are provided in the jurisprudence in this case.It is possible to consider three hypotheses in relation to the impact of the mistake on the punishment for repeating the Hadd: 1) The absolute absence of the consequence of the mistake in counting how many times the Hadd is executed, and the allowance of executing the death sentence in subsequent rounds. 2) The relative impact of the mistake, in such a way that if the perpetrator is responsible for the mistake, the mistake is not effective in counting the number of times the sentence is executed, and if the perpetrator is not the person responsible for the mistake, the fulfillment of the mistake will result in the exemption from the death sentence. 3) The absolute effect of the mistake and the prohibition of executing the death sentence in future rounds.In the present research, firstly, various cases in which a mistake was found in counting the number of repetitions were examined, then the three hypotheses mentioned were assessed based on the examples mentioned, and finally, the hypothesis of the absolute effect of the mistake in the number of repetitions, which caused the punishment prescribed in Article 136 to be extinguished is favored.
