درنگي در قلمروي قاعده فقهي «التعزير في كل عمل المحرم»

A Reflection on the Scope of the Jurisprudential Rule of “Atta’zir fi kooli a’malil mooharam

پژوهشِ حاضر، بررسي فقهي قاعده «التّعزير في كلِّ عمل محرّم» در بينِ فقهاست. اين قاعده يكي از قواعدي است كه در نزدِ فقهاي اسلام، اعمّ از متقدّمان و متأخران داراي شهرت بوده و يك قاعدة اصطيادي از مضامينِ ادلّه است؛ به ­گونه­ اي كه هيچ فقيهي به ­طورِ صريح آن را نفي نكرده است؛ اما اين قاعده با وجودِ شُهرت، خالي از اِشكال نيست. موضوع قاعده، تعميمِ تعزير به جميعِ معاصي و محرمات است، بدين­ گونه كه حاكمِ شرع طبقِ قاعدة مذكور حقّ دارد در موردِ جرايمي كه به اصطلاحِ فقهي، حرام­ اند و موجبِ حد نيستند، تعزير نمايد. هدف از اين پژوهش، نقد و ردّ استنادِ قاضي به اين قاعده در جُرم­ انگاري معاصي فاقدِ بيانِ مجازات در شرع و به ­طور كلي، نقدِ جرم ­انگاري دوگانه (براساسِ متون شرع و قانون) مي­باشد. در نهايت، با ذكر ادله و بررسي آن­ها به ­دست مي­آيد كه استدلال بر اين قاعده به ­دليلِ وجود نداشتنِ مستندِ قابلِ اعتماد تمام نبوده است و قاعده­ اي بي­ پايه قلمداد مي­ شود؛ مگر اينكه جرم و گناه را يكسان و مساوي بدانيم كه چنين چيزي هم نمي ­تواند صحيح قلمداد گردد، زيرا هيچ­گونه تلازم و رابطه اي بينِ جرم و گناه نيست.

The present paper investigates the jurisprudential rule of “Atta’zir fi kooli a’malil mooharam” as proposed by jurisprudents. This rule is one of the most famous ones among Islamic jurisprudents either the pioneer ones or the contemporary scholars and considered one of the extractive rules out of themes of reason that no jurisprudent could have rejected this rule clearly. However, this rule suffers from some drawbacks in spite of being famous. It is about generalization of all sins and forbidden acts so that based on this rule, the religious judge is authorized to execute ta’zir (discretionary punishment) for those crimes which are deemed unlawful according to jurisprudence but are not entitled to had (legal punishment). The present research aims at criticizing the inference of judge to this rule in determining crimes which do not have any punishment in shariah and generally, the authors are to criticize bilateral crime determination (based on shariah and law texts). Finally, the indications and proofs show that reliance on this rule is not acceptable due to lack of authentic documentation. Thus, this rule is considered unsubstantial unless the crime and sin are considered equal that such a hypothesis could not be a correct one as there is no correlation between sin and crime.