Today, one of the punishments condemned from the perspective of human rights principles is flogging. Despite the negative reactions to this punishment in international forums, some countries continue to insist on its implementation. Given that most of these countries are Islamic societies and generally carry out flogging as a discretionary (ta‘zīrī) punishment, this research, through a descriptive-analytical method, seeks to examine the necessity of abolishing discretionary flogging based on Islamic jurisprudential foundations and human rights obligations.

The findings of the study indicate that, in addition to its condemnation under human rights standards, this punishment lacks legitimacy from several jurisprudential perspectives.



First, unlike the context of early Islamic society, in today’s world and in view of contemporary human capacities, flogging is no longer perceived as a form of punishment but rather as torture, the pain of which is generally intolerable.

Second, in contrast to the past, flogging today is neither a rational nor a conventional punishment; it is instead considered a form of humiliation and an affront to human dignity.

Third, in the modern era, flogging fails to achieve the intended objectives of Islamic penal sanctions.

Fourth, under current conditions, the implementation of flogging serves as a cause for discrediting religion and deterring people from Islam.

Therefore, in accordance with the jurisprudential rule al-ta‘zīr bimā yarāh al-ḥākim (discretionary punishment is determined by the ruler’s judgment), Islamic societies are obligated to take steps toward the abolition of this punishment and to adopt more appropriate forms of discretionary penalties.