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 139
- Downloads 0
A Deliberation on the Principle of Al-ta‘zīr fī kull-i ma‘ṣiya (discretionary punishment in all sins)
The relation between crime and sin is of much importance in religion-based criminal law systems. In these systems, sin against Allah have a pivotal role in realizing crimes. In the Imāmī School, the criterion for crimina...
A Research on the Concept and Reliability of Fixed Way of Religionists (Irtikāz al-Mutisharri‘a) as Explained by Shī‘a Jurists’
Sīra is of a sublime status in Shī‘a jurisprudence and has been used as the most important reason in endorsed rulings of Islam. The Shī‘a jurists have used it as one of their evidences for inference of rulings to the ext...
Principle of Contract Freedom: Contracts and Contractual Conditions
The principle of justice is among the basic principles of Islamic law, particularly, in the law of contracts. Different legal systems establish and renew legal rulings in numerous cases through this principle. In fact, t...
An exploration into the concept of ‘assisting with sins’ in imami jurisprudence opinions
The notion ‘assisting with sins’ is a rule founded upon argumentations from the Qur’an and tradition, reason and consensus, and its authority is unassailable. There is almost no dispute as regards its authority, whereas...
Comparison and Comparative Examination of the Principle of Jubb (Acquittance from Previous Obligations) and General Amnesty from the Viewpoint of Jurisprudence and Law
One of the legal principles for the disbelievers who convert to Islam is the principle of jubb. This principle is the basis of Islamic mercy and clemency for denial of punishment of the disbelievers who welcome Islam. On...