Depenalization in Islamic Jurisprudence (Fiqh) with Reference to the Law Concerning the Reduction of Prison Sentences

Subject Areas :

Musa Khalilollahi ¹ , عباسعلی اکبری ² , Fatemeh Ahadi ³ , اسمعیل رحیمی نژاد ⁴

1 - Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University
2 - عضو هیات علمی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی تبریز
3 - دانشگاه ازاد اسلامی واحد مراغه
4 - professor in criminal law and criminology at the university of Tabriz

Received: 2025-02-19 Accepted : 2025-05-28 Published : 2025-09-22

Keywords: Depenalization Policy, Islamic Jurisprudence (Fiqh), Statutory Law, Mercy, Expediency,

Abstract :

Extended abstract Introduction: The rules and systems of Islamic criminal Fiqh are based on God's mercy and fairness. Punishment is also assigned in light of and based on divine fairness. Therefore, we can justify and explain depenalization based on God's mercy. The depenalization approach goes against the punishment-oriented one. According to legal logic, depenalization is secondary to the existence of punishment; in other words, without the existence of punishment, talking about depenalization is meaningless. Based on this, while decriminalization results in depenalization, this is outside the scope of the technical meaning of depenalization. In Islamic criminal Fiqh, depenalization has a broad concept and scope, such that it includes different measures before the trial and conviction of the defendant. Jurisprudential and legal depenalization requires conditions and mechanisms. The relationship and interaction between these two categories and their mutual impact lead to ambiguities and challenges. In this paper, these ambiguities and challenges are analyzed using a case-based approach on law concerning the reduction of discretionary prison sentences. In the end, the strengths and weaknesses of the above-mentioned law are explained, and recommendations for solving the challenges are offered. Methodology: This study uses the existing academic references, including books and papers related to the topic. The research also gathers data from online databases, websites, reference archives, and digital libraries. A descriptive-analytical method has been used to analyze the collected data. By studying and explaining the foundations of depenalization in Islamic jurisprudence, which is justifiable and can be explained in light of the established attribute of God's mercy and expediency, we attempted to examine its role in statutory law. By studying Islamic jurisprudence and using a case-based approach on law concerning the reduction of discretionary prison sentences, we aimed to examine the existing challenges and explain the solutions to resolve them. Results: Depenalization is secondary to the recognized existence of punishment, and without punishment, its real and genuine meaning is not formed. Some examples of depenalization are derivative and prescriptive. These examples are formed when they interfere with the judicial and jurisprudential mechanisms and bodies in the stage of proving the crime, resulting in a lack of proof of the crime, and no punishment is imposed in a derivative manner. The lack of proof of the crime results in no punishment being imposed, which, in effect, is treated as depenalization. The process of depenalization sometimes begins at the stage of proving the crime and sometimes after the proof of the crime. In principle, depenalization mechanisms at the crime-proof stage are different from those used after the crime is proven and the sentence is set. Some mechanisms are practical in both the crime-proof stage and after the crime is proven and the sentence is set. Repentance, the presumption of innocence, and the rule of doubt work during the crime-proof stage, whereas intercession and pardon are relevant only after the crime is proven and punishment is set. The foundations of depenalization in Islamic criminal Fiqh are based on the established attribute of God's mercy and expediency. Given that the structure of our criminal justice system is influenced by jurisprudential teachings, we can incorporate these foundations into statutory law and use them for depenalization alongside other foundations, all of which are based on expediency. Conclusion: The foundation of depenalization in the law concerning sentence reduction is based on expediency; it means that the legislator should not rely too much on imprisonment, as such an approach does not serve the best interests of society, the prisoner, or the prisoner’s family. Instead, by focusing on alternatives like minimal use of imprisonment, expansion of the scope of suspended sentences and semi-freedom systems, reducing or changing punishments for repeated or multiple offenses, increasing the number of (forgivable) offenses, and reducing the penalties for such crimes by half, they can facilitate partial or complete depenalization. Criminal justice strategies and mechanisms can be adjusted and expanded. When there are more types of depenalization strategies available, it is much easier to match them to the criminal personality of the offender, leading to an increase in the use of depenalization in a way that serves both individual and social interests. Therefore, it is recommended that, first, the legislature, when drafting its decriminalization criminal policy, should use the jurisprudential teachings and the guidance of experienced and capable jurists. Secondly, by referring to both jurisprudential teachings and customary law, the legislature should diversify depenalization mechanisms to ensure that depenalization aligns with both individual and social interests. Third, the legislature and judiciary should consider the engagement of righteous and law-abiding individuals and, in this regard, by referring to jurisprudence, incorporate the concept of ‘’intercession in punishment” into statutory law. Fourth, the judiciary, by setting another legal regulation, can facilitate the minimal use of imprisonment compared to other penalties. Fifth, it is recommended that the judiciary strengthen the judges' ability to evaluate the expediency in depenalization by organizing scientific and educational courses in psychology, sociology, and jurisprudence.

References:


قرآن کریم
نهج البلاغه
جوهری، اسماعیل¬بن¬حماد (1410ق). الصحاح-تاج اللغه و صحاح العربیه. بیروت: انتشارات دارالعلم للملایین.
حاجی ده آبادی، محمد علی(1383). امر به معروف و نهی از منکر، فصلنامه فقه و حقوق، 1، صص. 77-108.
حسینی، سیدمحمد (1380). منطقۀ کنترل¬شدۀ رفتاری در سیاست جنائی اسلام. مجلۀ دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران. 52.
حسینی، سیدمحمد؛ متولی¬زادۀ ¬نائینی، نفیسه (1391). بررسی نظریۀ برچسب¬زنی با نگاهی به منابع اسلامی. مجلۀ علمی پژوهشی وزارت علوم.
خمینی، روح¬اله (1390). تحریر الوسیله. قم: مؤسسۀ مطبوعات دارالعلم.
خسروشاهی، قدرت¬اله؛ سلطانی، مسعود (1395). الزامات حقوق بشری مجازات¬ها، مجلۀ حقوقی دانشگاه اصفهان. 3(1).
دهخدا، علی¬اکبر (1377). لغت¬نامه. تهران: انشارات دانشگاه تهران.
رجبی، اکبر؛ مهدوی¬پور، اعظم (1397). بررسی مرور زمان در فقه و حقوق کیفری ایران با رویکرد به نظرات امام خمینی. پژوهش¬نامۀ متین. 79.
راغب اصفهانی، حسین¬بن¬محمد (1412،ق). مفردات. بیروت: دارالعلم.
سبحانی، جعفر؛ محمدرضایی، محمد (1398). اندیشۀ اسلامی 1. قم: نشر معارف.
صادقی، محمدهادی؛ ریاحی، جواد (1395). اجتهاد تعزیر؛ مبنای اعمال مجازات¬های محدودکنندۀ آزادی در فقه جزایی. مجلۀ پژوهش¬های فقهی.
طالبی ¬آشتیانی، محمدعلی (1397). کیفرزدایی در تعزیرات، رسالۀ دکتری. تهران.
طوسی، محمدبن¬حسن (1387). الْمَبسوط فی فقهِ الامامیّه. تهران: انتشارات مکتب المرتضویّه.
فاضل لنکرانی، محمد (1416ق). القواعد الفقهیه. قم: انتشارات مهر.
محقق داماد، سیدمصطفی (1398). فقه استدلالی جزایی تطبیقی. تهران: انتشارات مرکز علوم اسلامی.
مسجدسرای، حمید، نبی نیا، خالد، باقری، احمد و صدر، سید محمد (1397) اصل صرفه جویی کیفری، مبنای تفسیر احکام و قوانین جزایی اسلام، فصلنامه فقه و حقوق اسلامی، 14(51).
موسوی بجنوردی، محمد (1401ق). قواعد فقهیه، انتشارات مجد، چاپ سوم.
موسوی خوئی، سیدابوالقاسم (1422ق). مبانی تکمله المنهاج. جلد41. قم: انتشارات مؤسسۀ احیاء آثار امام خوئی.
مصدق، محمد (1398). شرح قانون مجازات اسلامی. جلد 1. تهران: انتشارات جنگل.
منتظری نجف¬آبادی ،حسین¬علی (1417ق). نظام الحکم فی الا سلام. قم: انتشارات سرایی.
میرخلیلی، احمد؛ کلانتری، عباس؛ دشتی، حسین. (1398). قلمرو شفاعت در اقسام مجازات. مجلۀ فقه و اصول. دورۀ 51.
نجفی ابرندآبادی، علی¬حسین. (1393). تقریرات درسی از جرم¬شناسی انتقادی تا جرم¬شناختی امنیتی. دورۀ دکتری حقوق جزا و جرم¬شناسی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی.
Holy Quran
Nahj al-Balagha
Dehkhoda, Ali Akbar (2000). Dictionary. Tehran: Tehran University Publications. [In persian]
Fazel Lankarani, Muhammad (1416 AH). Al-Qawwa’id al-Fiqhiyah. Qom: Mehr Publications. [In persian]
Haji Dehabadi, Mohammad Ali (2004). Enjoining the good and forbidding the evil, Quarterly Journal of Jurisprudence and Law, 1, pp. 77-108. [In persian]
Hosseini, Seyed Mohammad (2001). Behavioral Controlled Zone in Islamic Criminal Policy. Journal of the Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran. 52. [In persian]
Hosseini, Seyed Mohammad; Motwalizadeh Naini, Nafiseh (2012). Studying the Theory of Labeling with a View to Islamic Sources. Scientific Research Journal of the Ministry of Science. 4. [In persian]
Jawhari, Ismail ibn Hammad (1410 AH). Al-Sahih -Taj al-Lughah and Al-Sahih al-Arabiya. Beirut: Dar al-Ilm Publications for Millions. [In persian]
Khomeini, Ruhollah (2011). Tahrir al-Wasileh. Qom: Dar al-Elam Press Institute. [In persian]
Khosrowshahi, Qodrat al-Olah; Soltani, Masoud (2016). Human Rights Requirements of Punishments, Isfahan University Law Journal. 3(1). [In persian]
Masjeedsarai, Hamid, Nabinia, Khalid, Bagheri, Ahmad and Sadr, Seyyed Mohammad (2018) The principle of penal economy, the basis for interpreting Islamic penal laws and regulations, Islamic Jurisprudence and Law Quarterly, 14(51). [In persian]
Mirkhalili, Ahmad; Kalantari, Abbas; Dashti, Hossein. (2019). The realm of intercession in types of punishment. Journal of Fiqh and Principles. Volume 51. [In persian]
Mohaqiq Damad, Seyyed Mustafa (1398). Comparative Criminal Argumentative Jurisprudence. Tehran: Islamic Sciences Center Publications. [In persian]
Montazeri Najafabadi, Hussein Ali (1417 AH). The System of Ruling in the Name of Peace. Qom: Sarai Publications. [In persian]
Mousavi Bojnourdi, Mohammad (1401 AH). Rules of Jurisprudence, Majd Publications, 3rd edition.
Mosaddeq, Mohammad (1398). Explanation of the Islamic Penal Code. Volume 1. Tehran: Jangal Publications. [In persian]
Mousavi Khoei, Seyyedab al-Qasim (1422 AH). Fundamentals of the Completeness of the Curriculum. Volume 41. Qom: Publications of the Institute for the Revival of Imam Khoei's Works. [In persian]
Najafi Abrandabadi, Ali Hossein. (2014). Course notes from critical criminology to security criminology. Doctoral course in criminal law and criminology, Shahid Beheshti University. [In persian]
Rajabi, Akbar; Mahdavipour, Azam (2018). A study of the passage of time in Iranian jurisprudence and criminal law with an approach to the views of Imam Khomeini. Matin Research Paper. 79. [In persian]
Ragheeb Isfahani, Hossein ibn Mohammad (1412, AH). Vocabulary. Beirut: Dar al-Ilm. [In persian]
Sobhani, Jafar; Mohammad Rezaee, Mohammad (2019). Islamic Thought 1. Qom: Maarif Publishing House. [In persian]
Sadeghi, Mohammad Hadi; Riahi, Javad (2016). Ijtihad of Ta’zir; The basis for imposing punishments restricting freedom in criminal jurisprudence. Journal of Jurisprudential Studies. 12. [In persian]
Talebi-Ashtiani, Mohammad Ali (2018). Decriminalization of Ta’zir, PhD thesis. Tehran. [In persian]
Tusi, Muhammad ibn Hassan (1387). Al-Mabsut fi fiqh al-Imamiyah. Tehran: Maktaba al-Murtazawiyyah Publications. [In persian]