a deliberation on punishment for pederasty: legal-judicial analysis of article 110 of iranian civil law

despite the challenges noticed in the meaning and concept of pederasty (lawāṭ), different viewpoints have always existed among the jurists concerning the punishment of the pederast, to the extent that some jurists have decreed death penalty equally for both the married and unmarried pederast. in contrast, some others have reconciled among the related traditions in this respect and considered the same punishment for pederasty as the one for adultery and have distinguished between the married and the unmarried pederast. quoting various opinions as well as analyzing the evidences derived from traditions concerning the punishment of the pederast, the present article considers as constrainable the absoluteness of the traditions referred to by the jurists who believe in the equal punishment for the married and unmarried pederast and maintains that the exigency of the reconciliation among the traditions is that the pederast, in case of being married, is sentenced to death and if unmarried is sentenced to lashes. of course, as for pederasty in case of non-penetration (ghayr īqāb), several views are recognizable in imāmiya jurisprudence, as the generally accepted view has considered lashes and some jurists like shaykh ṭūsī in al-nihāya have decreed lapidation for the married man and lashes for the unmarried man. the islamic penal law, on the basis of some traditions, has simply considered death penalty as the punishment for pederasty in case of penetration. examining the objections made against the lawmaker’s definition of pederasty, the present research analyzes article 110 of iranian civil law and tries to criticize the lawmaker’s legislative function besides analyzing the lawmaker’s basis in establishing punishment for pederasty.