A Comparative Study of the Necessity of Expedient Jurisprudential Convergence of Corporal Punishments in Criminal Law of Iran and Other Islamic Countries with Deference to International Law

Today, we are witnessing a series of political and media games by the Western World that seek to undermine the principle of Islamic law. One of these challenges is the issue of corporal punishment in the field of criminal law, to which there is a relatively high sensitivity. The main reason for these sensitivities is that some of these punishments are rooted in jurisprudence or Sharia, so they find an opportunity to attack the principle of religion under the pretext of human rights debates for the non-convergence of these punishments with international documents. The present study aims at exploring the possibility of converging the system of criminal law in the area of corporal punishment in order to comply with the provisions of international law based on the rule of jurisprudential expediency. It seems that through the knowledge that has been obtained from the intentions of some opponents and that human rights debates and international documents are a means not to defend real human rights but a double standard for achieving behind-the-scenes goals, it is expedient to know the exact time and position and to jurisprudentially reconsider some corporal punishments with religious roots and arrangements such as temporary closure. This way, such dissidents would be theoretically disarmed.