نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
عنوان مقاله English
نویسندگان English
In the Islamic penal system, *hudud* rulings—as fixed and specific punishments—occupy a distinct position in safeguarding the objectives of the Sharia. In the contemporary era, the emergence of hermeneutical and human rights discourses has given rise to systematic challenges regarding the trans-temporal validity of these rulings. Employing a descriptive-analytical method and a comparative approach, this study examines four foundational arguments underlying these challenges—namely, the historicity of the rulings, their perceived incompatibility with the "spirit of the times," the alleged disproportion between the punishment and the crime, and the issue of the victim's consent. These arguments are analyzed and evaluated through the perspectives of two prominent scholars: Allameh Tabataba'i (a Shi'a exegete and philosopher) and Wahba al-Zuhayli (a contemporary Sunni jurist and exegete). The findings indicate that the theory of "fixed and variable rulings"—a conceptual framework shared by both scholars—offers a coherent response to these challenges. Specifically, "fixed" rulings address the innate and immutable needs of human beings, while "variable" rulings are determined by the Islamic authority within the scope of the fixed rulings, based on considerations of time and place. Consequently, the challenges raised are not only inconsistent with Islamic epistemological foundations but are also rooted in a superficial perspective, an incomplete understanding of religious teachings, and an influence from Western philosophical paradigms.
کلیدواژهها English
