mahammad rohani moghadam

In all eras, people's ownership of property has been an important and sensitive issue. Undoubtedly, everyone wanted to respect their property rights, and of course there are always people who ignore these rights and commit theft, which by the way is criminalized in all legal systems. In the Islamic system, theft is under two headings, "Hadi" and "Taziri". It has been said, the position of motivation in these criminal titles is somewhat different despite being the same. In this article, with a descriptive and analytical approach, we seek to find a suitable answer to this question: Is the criminal motive different in hadi and taziri thefts? It seems that some examples of the material element in Hadi theft have a direct effect on its spiritual element, and as a result, it has an effect on the type of crime and the amount of punishment. As a result, the research findings show that some of the material examples of theft have been completely effective in determining the location of the motivation or the equivalent of the psychological element of the crime, which can even have a direct effect on the type of theft and punishment.

Security of property and ownership has been identified as a red line of governments in most legal systems of the world. Usually theft is one of the crimes, all governments have considered strong criminal enforcement guarantees for it. In Islamic jurisprudence, theft is divided into limits and punishments, each of which has its own indicators. Various punishments have been considered for that, which in Ta'ziri theft, "state of emergency" is one of the factors that mitigate criminal liability. In this article, we are looking for an answer to this question with a descriptive and analytical approach through the library and documents method based on jurisprudence and criminal law, does urgency in the theft of Hadi usually lead to responsibility or not? It seems that in Hadi theft, taking into account the rule of Dara, the subject of Article (120) of the 92. and the principle of innocence, it exempts the person from criminal responsibility, but according to the authors, it will be valid under normal circumstances.