جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "تعزیر" در نشریات گروه "علوم سیاسی"

Since no comprehensive research has been done on the criminal policy of Islamic jurisprudence in the field of political crime of Arjaf, the purpose of this study is to examine the views of Islamic jurists on the criminal policy of Islam in relation to the political crime of Arjaf and this is the most important question What: Islamic jurisprudence has taken measures for the political crime of Arjaf? Which has achieved the following results through the method of library collection and descriptive and analytical methods Arjaf to the text of the Holy Quran, whether during war or otherwise, is forbidden. And it is considered a kind of political crime because it is an action against the government and the Infallible Imam (as). Therefore, in the society, it causes psychological warfare, endangering the social order and government, weakening the morale of individuals, etc., so the perpetrators of Arjaf are criminally responsible for the harm they inflict on the society and Muslims, and the Shari'ah punishes them with murder. Or he has condemned exile. Of course, this sentence is for those who are considered as examples of moharebeh and fornication (limit punishment), and otherwise, due to the rule of ta'zir in all sins and the rule of ta'zir of the ruling will, the person deserves ta'zir.

Crimes against chastity have always been considered as the most challenging crimes in the criminal law of Iran and have been changed in substantive and formal laws since 1304. Examining whether these crimes are measurable and whether there is a criterion and criteria that crimes are contrary to Recognize chastity from other crimes or other actions and behaviors is the subject of this study. In crimes against chastity, there is a limit due to the exclusive nature of crimes and the comprehensive definition and obstacle of rules and criteria. However, in the case of crimes against chastity, it can be said that standardization is ambiguous, but ugliness of action, public aspect of action, and being immoral, good and shameful can be the most important criteria in recognizing these crimes. Crimes should not be ignored. Therefore, in the current law, the criterion for determining the crime is the illegitimate relationship between the holy Shari'a of Islam and the custom of society, and regarding custom, it has been mentioned before that when a custom is cited, there is no text and if there is a text, one cannot refer to custom. But in general, it can be said that having a public aspect, being ugly and being shameful can be criteria and standards of crimes against chastity.

In the legal and penal systems, significant predictions have been made in case of multiplicity of crimes, and according to the principle of proportionality of crime and punishment, it is proper that every crime should be punished according to the prediction of the legislator. But sometimes, due to the important differences that exist in the longitudinal and transverse series of crimes and considering that the number of repetitions, the issue of their time and the assignment of punishment to different levels of the crime are calculated in the law, research in this regard becomes necessary. With a descriptive-analytical approach, he discussed the guarantees of maintaining the proportionality of the punishment in the case of multiple crimes and the interference of the punishment in Iranian law. As it can be analyzed and understood from the legal documents, the first step towards understanding this issue is to look for guarantees to maintain proportionality in the multiplicity of bodies. The approach to maintain proportionality invites us to redefine the relevant concepts. Based on this, multiplicity of crimes is the state of committing more than one crime without the defendant or perpetrator being tried in any court. In Iran, this multiplicity plays a fundamental role in determining the amount of punishment and is related to its frequency and time, but all these issues are subject to maintaining the proportionality of punishment and crime. However, based on the results of this research, sometimes,

According to the basic rules of Islamic criminal law, punishments are classified in to "had" (prescribed punishment fixed in law) and ta’zir (discretionary punishment left to the decision of the judge). In traditional view, it is believed that in addition to the fact that these two types of punishments are stemming from two different types of crimes, the characteristics and precepts of these two kinds of punishments are very different. The recurrence of the differences between "had" and "ta’zir" in jurisprudential books through out the centuries has made these differences determined and fixed and increased problematically and unjustifiably the gap between "had" and "ta’zir". This article reviews this classification and differences between "had" and "ta’zir" as recognized in traditional jurisprudential view. According to the findings of the article, the historical analysis of the origins of these differences may lead us to a new understanding of these differences. The differences mentioned in the orthodox view are often related to the characteristics and rules of all kinds of punishments. A literal and limited approach to religious texts related to the issue and a particular understanding of the word "had" has yielded to the idea that these rules are specific to "had". According to this article, these rational principles have been recognized more or less in almost all rational criminal law systems and therefore, it is not justified to be considered as special characteristics and principles of "had".

The legitimacy of pecuniary punishment in an Islamic government has been one of the serious challenges faced by Shi’i jurisprudents. The Sunni jurisprudents are also not unanimous about the issue in question. In general, in both ShiÝi and Sunni jurisprudence, there have been two differing views of the financial offences. Since the early ShiÝi jurisprudents have not been faced with the juristic (fiqhi) questions in the field of Islamic government, they have had less considerations of the governmental fiqh and taken the legal discretionary punishments [awarded by the judge] to be restricted to what the legal texts prescribe. In other words, they hold the view that the prescribed punishment can be reduced to and replaced by imprisonment and reprimand of certain kind and do not consider pecuniary punishments and deprivation of political and civic rights as illegal. However, after the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran, some contemporary faqihs, having made some considerations of and speculations about governmental fiqh, believe that an Islamic government can lay down laws for pecuniary punishments. In this connection, they argue for the necessity of the preservation, reorganization and consideration of the common good of the Islamic community and offer historical evidence based on the reports of the Infallible Imams to substantiate their own views. In the Sunni fiqh, there have been two theories concerning pecuniary punishments. Some say that pecuniary punishments are permissible and some believe that they are illegal and thus forbidden. Both groups have offered their own reasons, but the legitimacy of pecuniary punishments as discretionary punishment in the discipline of fiqh enjoys a stronger ground which leaves no room to doubt about it.