Ключевые слова
Аннотация
In jurisprudential terminology, doubt means confusion and error in religious rulings, in such a way that a matter seems permissible from one perspective and forbidden from another. One of the important types of doubt is doubt of the path, which results from the ijtihadist disagreement of jurists based on conflict or convergence of evidence. In such a case, due to the impossibility of definitively preferring one of the opinions, the issue remains in a state of ambiguity that makes it difficult to apply the Islamic hadd to it. From the perspective of jurisprudential principles, the principles of abolishing the limits in doubt of the path include the principles of precaution, consideration of differences, conflict of evidence, and the principles of ratification and error. The purpose of this research is to examine the concept and scope of the rule of the adre al-hudud based on doubts. The question raised in this research is: What is the concept and scope of the rule of the adre al-hudud based on doubts? It seems that the rule of "adrā' al-hudūd bil-shubahat" is one of the fundamental principles of Islamic criminal jurisprudence, which aims to prevent the implementation of hadīth punishments in case of doubt. This research was conducted using library tools and an analytical-descriptive method. The findings of the research show that whenever jurisprudential opinions on a hadīth issue are formed based on strong but conflicting reasons, this same difference will lead to the removal of the hadīth, because in Sharia, the application of hadīth punishment requires certainty in the verdict. The aforementioned rule, in line with the principle of caution in blood, property and honor, plays an important role in protecting defendants against hadīth punishments.