نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دکترای حقوق، دانشگاه علوم اسلامی رضوی، مشهد، ایران.
2 استادیار گروه حقوق، دانشگاه علوم اسلامی رضوی، مشهد، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Theft that warrants the ḥadd penalty (fixed punishment) is subject to specific conditions, among which are the breaching of a secure location or breaking into safe custody (ḥirz) and the non-usurped (ghaṣbī) nature of the property. The legislator articulates the ruling for a usurped secure location (ghaṣbī ḥirz) in Article 270 of the Islamic Penal Code and specifies the condition that the stolen property must not be usurped in Article 268 of the same code. However, upon careful examination of jurisprudential (fiqhī) texts and legal analysis, it becomes evident that this issue involves different hypotheses and categories. The legislator has either not provided a general ruling for some of these cases, or their ruling cannot be derived from the apparent meaning (ẓāhir) of Articles 270 and 268 of the Islamic Penal Code. Through conceptual inference, and in light of the statements of the jurists (fuqahāʾ) and general legal principles, the verdict in some hypotheses affirms a theft punishable by ḥadd, while in others, it negates it. In the context of theft from a ghaṣbī ḥirz, the taking of property may be carried out by the owner (mālik), a person with equivalent legal standing, or a third party. The ruling for this third case is not explicitly stipulated in the law. Although a ruling on this matter could be inferred by applying the argument from the converse concept (contrario argument or mafhūm al-mukhālafah) of Article 270 of the Islamic Penal Code, this inference conflicts with certain jurisprudential (fiqhī) and legal principles (qawāʿid). Regarding usurped property (māl al-ghaṣbī), the legislator has confined itself to merely stating the condition that the stolen property not be usurped in the last paragraph of Article 268 of the Islamic Penal Code. This is despite the fact that this issue also presents various hypotheses. These include the owner retrieving the property from the usurper (ghāṣib), a third party stealing the property of the usurper, the owner, or both, and whether the usurped property is partitioned (mafrūz) or jointly owned (mushāʿ). The ruling for each of these hypotheses may differ.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)