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 143
- Downloads 0
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...
Legal-Juridical Study of Conditional Option in Unilateral Obligation
In civil law, khiyārāt (options or rights of withdrawal) is a topic concerning contracts. Also, in article 456 of civil law, khiyār is viewed as related to transactions. In statuary jurisprudence and law, there is little...
Legal and Juridical Study of Qiṣāṣ through Donation of Organs
The applicability of executing the qiṣāṣ punishment through donation of organs is a novel topic and at the same time influential in safeguarding the blessings of human health and life. The legitimacy of this procedure re...
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...
A Deliberation on the Necessity of Imitating the Most Learned
The present article studies the issue of the “necessity of imitating the most learned (a‘lam)”. To this end, while comparing the evidences of the proponents and the opponents of the necessity of imitating the most learne...