The legitimacy of pecuniary punishment in an Islamic government has been one of the serious challenges faced by Shi’i jurisprudents. The Sunni jurisprudents are also not unanimous about the issue in question. In general, in both ShiÝi and Sunni jurisprudence, there have been two differing views of the financial offences. Since the early ShiÝi jurisprudents have not been faced with the juristic (fiqhi) questions in the field of Islamic government, they have had less considerations of the governmental fiqh and taken the legal discretionary punishments [awarded by the judge] to be restricted to what the legal texts prescribe. In other words, they hold the view that the prescribed punishment can be reduced to and replaced by imprisonment and reprimand of certain kind and do not consider pecuniary punishments and deprivation of political and civic rights as illegal. However, after the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran, some contemporary faqihs, having made some considerations of and speculations about governmental fiqh, believe that an Islamic government can lay down laws for pecuniary punishments. In this connection, they argue for the necessity of the preservation, reorganization and consideration of the common good of the Islamic community and offer historical evidence based on the reports of the Infallible Imams to substantiate their own views. In the Sunni fiqh, there have been two theories concerning pecuniary punishments. Some say that pecuniary punishments are permissible and some believe that they are illegal and thus forbidden. Both groups have offered their own reasons, but the legitimacy of pecuniary punishments as discretionary punishment in the discipline of fiqh enjoys a stronger ground which leaves no room to doubt about it.
