| المستخلص: |
This paper explores the extent of the legitimacy of discretionary action against any person based on mere grounds of suspicion and its comparison to Egyptian law. The paper explores four essential issues: - The infliction of any form of corporal injury as discretionary punishment to coerce a suspect into confession. - The ruling for a coerced confession. - Provisional detention. - Financial bail for the temporary release of a suspect. The most important conclusions reached: 1- Human honor is one of the fundamental principles of the Shari'ah and law both of which consider any legislation that violates this principle illegitimate. 2- All legislated punishments that are inconsistent with this principle are enacted to prevent a greater evil or to prevent certain or potential crimes. 3- It is necessary to review certain terms used by past scholars which were prevalent at their time. These include "al-mash-hur bil islah," "al-mash-hur bil fasad," "mastur al-hal," and "fasad ahl az-zaman." 4- The necessity of benefiting from scientific developments in the matter of investigation. 5- Restricting the authoritative influence of any person no matter his position and at the same time, monitoring the conduct of investigators against corruption or abuse of authority. 6- The essence of the difference between jurists on the point of this research is striking a balance between two interests: honoring man and preserving his humanity, preserving the social system, and delivering rights to their owners. There seems to be a clear convergence between the endeavors of Islamic legal jurists and jurists of secular law on many points of the research paper, with the Islamic legal jurists excelling in some aspects and vice-versa. It should be noted that Islamic legal jurists are more realistic while the jurists of secular law are more theoretical.
|
