نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسنده
مدیر گروه حقوق کیفری و جرم شناسی دانشکده الهیات و معارف اسلامی هدی
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]
The Law on "Intensification of Penalties for Espionage and Collaboration with the Zionist Regime and Hostile States against National Security and Interests," enacted in October 2025, adopts a significantly stricter legislative approach and, for the first time, prescribes the death penalty alongside total property confiscation for numerous offenses. Utilizing descriptive, analytical, and jurisprudential (*ijtihadi*) methods through library research, this study examines the jurisprudential nature of the mandated death penalty, incorporating a comparative perspective on other Islamic schools of thought and the legal system of Afghanistan.
The findings indicate that the nature of these executions suffers from severe jurisprudential ambiguity: if classified as *hudud*, the requisite conditions are entirely omitted; if classified as *ta’zir*, the legitimacy of capital punishment requires deeper scrutiny under Imami and other Islamic jurisprudences. It appears probable that the legislator, by adding Notes 3 and 4 to Article 1, intended to definitively delineate instances of "corruption on earth" (*ifsad fi al-ard*), though unsuccessfully. Alternatively, following the Guardian Council's objection to Article 286, the legislator may have established capital *ta’zir* based on *maslahah* (public interest) and the preservation of the state order.
From a comparative standpoint, capital *ta’zir* is accepted in most Sunni schools for high-risk security offenses. Similarly, Afghanistan's Penal Code, rooted in Hanafi jurisprudence, recognizes multiple instances under *qatl al-siyasah* (state-policy execution). Ultimately, structural differences between *hadd* and *ta’zir*, coupled with the need for legal transparency, render a serious legislative revision essential.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)