It is widely-held by Imami jurists that if confession, which is one of the methods of proving a lawsuit, happens twice, it proves the punishment (hadd) for theft. According to Article 172 of the Islamic Penal Code of Iran (passed in 2013), the legislator sees eye to eye
More
It is widely-held by Imami jurists that if confession, which is one of the methods of proving a lawsuit, happens twice, it proves the punishment (hadd) for theft. According to Article 172 of the Islamic Penal Code of Iran (passed in 2013), the legislator sees eye to eye with the famous or widely-held opinion. Meanwhile, some early jurists have explicitly opposed this notion, and it is also deciphered from the words of some more recent jurists that they also disagree with this position inasmuch as they maintain that a full confession made only one time shall suffice for proving the hadd (punishment) for theft. Considering that the narrations cited by famous jurists can be undermined in terms of their "chain of transmission" and "denotation" and no other convincing proof has been presented in this regard, and also, in view of the existence of authentic narrations indicating the sufficiency of one confession for proving the punishment for theft as well as the conformity of this saying with the generality of the proofs of the validity of the confession and the traditions that prove the punishment for theft by confession, the writer considers one confession that meets all the conditions to be sufficient for proving the punishment for theft.
Manuscript profile