Searching into the Evidences on the Inclusiveness of Discretionary Punishment
Journal Title: فقه و اصول - Year 2014, Vol 45, Issue 95
Abstract
Concerning the prohibited or obligatory actions for perpetrating or abandoning of which no punishment has been established, the act of determining discretionary punishment is entrusted to the Muslim judge. An important and meaningful question is raised here as to whether this kind of punishment would include all the unlawful actions and abandoning? In other words, are all legal sins and misdemeanors legally punishable or the Muslim judge would announce just a part of it as punishable? According to the generally accepted legal viewpoint, the legal judge can, if he deems it expedient, penalize (practice ta‘zīr on) the one who has perpetrated an unlawful (ḥarām) act (and some maintain that the unlawful act has to be a cardinal sin), but ta‘zīr should be less at a lower level than ḥadd (legal punishment). The renowned majority of Imāmī and Sunnī jurists have accepted this theory. In contrast, some jurists, including Muḥaqqiq Ardabīlī, have cast doubt on the judgment itself that any unlawful act deserves to be punished through ta‘zīr. Some contemporary jurists have also concluded that there is no reliable evidence that the perpetrator of any unlawful act would deserve ta‘zīr. Some have, even if accepting the judgment itself, interpreted the extent of ta‘zīr in such a way that it would include admonition, advice, reproach, and threat, as well. It is attempted in this article that while making an analytical statement of the viewpoints of the two sides, the viewpoints of the jurists who agree with this judgment to be seriously criticized and to prove with a dominant legal perspective that there is no jurisprudential or legal evidence for discretionary punishment of any unlawful act and consequently, this viewpoint is not to be easily taken as a foundation for legislation.
Authors and Affiliations
ḤAmīD Masjidsarā‘ī
Keywords
Related Articles
- EP ID EP184411
- DOI 10.22067/fiqh.v0i0.13834
- Views 151
- Downloads 0
A Critique on the Legal Theory of the Sufficiency of Swearing Fifty Oaths by the Claimant in Qasāma (Compurgation) (The Legal Principles of Article 377 of the Penal Code Bill of 1390 sh/2011)
Qasāma is one of the proofs for homicide, which will be reliable in case of the existence of lawth (strong suspicion). There are two major views on how it is implemented. In sum, the first view deems as necessary swearin...
An examination of selling forbidden meat to unbelievers
The question has long been asked whether the meat of animals not purified in accordance with Islamic law and thus considered ‘dead’ can be sold to non-Muslims who do not adhere to Islamic legal purification. Can the prof...
A Deliberation on the Application of the Legal Principle of Avoidance (I‘rāḍ)
In this article, aimed at promoting Iranian statutes and increasing their applicatory aspects and for providing more and more financial security of society, the legal rule of i‘rāḍ (avoidance, abandonment) is deliberated...
A Research concerning the Principles of the Right for Human Dignity in Sources of Rules
Human dignity is examinable at least in three fields: human dignity, Divine dignity, and socio-conventional dignity. In this article, due to time limits, we have only dealt with a part of what can be presented about dign...
A Research on the Historical Course of Tanqīḥ al-Manāt in Imāmī Jurisprudence
Tanqīḥ al-manāṭ (refinement of the basis of the ruling) is the refining and elaborating of the reason and basis of a ruling of the redundant features along with decreeing and generalizing it to any case that enjoys a com...