چکیده:
Invoking expediency in criminal policy-making has always been considered a challenging issue among jurists and legal scholars. Despite all the criticisms raised by opponents regarding the authority and application of expediency in jurisprudential and legal matters, the necessity of invoking it—certainly in light of religious and rational regulations to observe the interests and requirements of time and place, and in issuing rulings and formulating laws, while eliminating the perceived limitations of Islam and reducing the suspicion of religious stagnation and rigidity in not meeting essential human needs—will open a regulated door for reviewing contemporary issues. Therefore, given the existing sensitivities regarding the application of expediency in criminal matters, which directly relate to the fundamental rights of individuals, the regulations for invoking it in expediency-seeking across various dimensions of criminal policy must be explained. The findings of this article, prepared using a descriptive and analytical method, state that the scope of applying expediency should not be limited solely to a specific type of ruling, such as Ta'zirat; rather, due to the dependence of all rulings on inherent interests and harms, it will apply to all current and effective rulings, provided that this process complies with general rational and religious rules and regulations and remains under the constraints enumerated in this article.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Despite all the criticisms from opponents regarding the authority and application of maslahat in jurisprudential and legal matters, the necessity of relying on it in light of Sharia and rational rules, the need to observe the interests and requirements of time and place, and the reduction of the suspicion of religious rigidity, has led to a reconsideration of newly emerging issues.
This subject has many manifestations in criminal legislation; however, given the existing sensitivities regarding the application of maslahat, especially in criminal matters which are related to the fundamental rights of individuals, it is necessary to specify the rules for relying on it in interest-based decision-making across various dimensions of criminal policy (legislative, judicial, and executive).
Based on those conflicts in the application of maslahat in the spheres of ijtihad and legislation, providing a logical interpretation to clarify the necessity of regulation and methodology for the precise jurisprudential institution of maslahat and the process of istislah in various subjects, including criminal policy-making, has been unavoidable.
Sharia (Shar') Sharia and religious teachings, which are also expressed as "revealed Sharia or divine law," exist from the perspective of the Legislator within the framework of Sharia and mean the subjects that God the Wise has established for the material and spiritual life of His servants, such as the ruling of the obligation to implement Hudud and Ta'zirat or the necessity of executing Qisas.
The criterion of certainty, necessity, and universality In a general statement, jurists unanimously believe that public interest (maslahah) and the process of Istislah (seeking public interest) in Islamic law must be based on certain criteria that have rational, legal, and innate origins.
(
, 
, 
)
