Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1
PhD Student in Jurisprudence and Basics of Islamic Law, Faculty of Law, Theology and Political Sciences, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2
Assistant Professor, Department of Quranic and Hadith Sciences, Faculty of Humanities, Tarbiat Modarres University, Tehran, Iran
3
Assistant Professor, Department of Jurisprudence and Basics of Islamic Law, Faculty of Law, Theology and Political Sciences, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
The dynamism of Shiite jurisprudence is in the light of the potential capacities of the government’s rule and more attention to secondary topics. The use of corporal punishments (stoning, flogging, amputation and execution) as a Hadd has been considered contrary to the human rights obligations of the Islamic Republic of Iran and has provoked reactions. The result of this research, which has been written in a descriptive-analytical method, indicates that according to the jurisprudential rule of the prohibition of inciting hatred of religion and global tendencies on non-imposition of corporal punishment, it is possible to limit the mentioned punishments. Although the requirement of the initial edicts is the stability and irreversibility of corporal punishments, but according to the interpretive views of human rights institutions and the existing challenges, the issuance of a governmental edict based on "prohibition of inciting hatred of religion" is possible and temporarily provable, and the Islamic ruler has the authority to limit corporal punishment. Iranian courts, at the discretion of the Supreme Leader, can minimize the use of corporal punishment and avoid the international responsibility of the government and protect the interests of the system.
Keywords
)