A Jurisprudential-Legal Analysis of Imposters’ Punishment (A Critique on the Article 657 of Islamic Punishment Law)

There is a great controversy on the decree of an imposter’s crime among the jurists. However, by examining the statements by jurists, it is concluded that all imposters in general and even in some specific cases deserve Had (prescribed punishment) for such a crime. They merely disagree in the related clauses of this crime originating from their different understandings of the related traditions on the detailed issues of larceny either from one’s outwears or his underwear. Contrary to all jurists’ opinions, the lawmaker will charge the imposters with Ta’zir (punishment) not prescribed punishment in any condition based on the on the Article 657 of Islamic Punishment Law. Having investigating the jurists’ declarations and indications in this respect and contrary to the popular jurists’ opinion and the Article 657 of Islamic Punishment Law, the authors have come to this conclusion that, as the custom matters in studying the subject of Hirz (shield), the detailed traditions merely focus on stating some instances of theft from shield in pickpocketing. It is feasible to specify these cases from the traditions and consider them as examples merely, as the traditions do not indicate generalization to be obeyed from which theft from shield or non- shield are solely deduced from these traditions. Thus, theft from the outwear merits prescribed punishment given the custom recognizes it as theft from shield. Accordingly, considering the existing instances mentioned in traditions, such decree comes true for the similar crimes such as pilfering (snatching a purse).