According to Article 236 of the 2013 Islamic Penal Code, the punishment of tafhidh is set at one hundred lashes and applies to all individuals, regardless of whether the perpetrator or the victim is a Muslim or non-Muslim, and whether the act is committed with or without coercion. However, the legislator has prescribed a more severe penalty—capital punishment—specifically when a non-Muslim perpetrator commits tafhidh against a Muslim victim. This aggravation reflects the legislator’s alignment with one of the two perspectives within Islamic criminal jurisprudence.

Within Islamic criminal law, significant disagreement exists among Shiite jurists regarding this differential punishment. One group holds that the standard tafhidh penalty of one hundred lashes should be elevated to the death penalty if the perpetrator is non-Muslim and the victim is Muslim. In contrast, another group asserts that the punishment for tafhidh is uniform for all individuals, with no distinction based on religious identity. Examination of both viewpoints reveals that each relies on distinct juristic and textual evidences, highlighting the depth and diversity of Shiite jurisprudential reasoning on sexual crimes and hudud punishments.

This study employs a descriptive-analytical method to elucidate and assess these perspectives. By referencing various evidences and using the method of comparative analysis, the research critiques the rationale behind the legislator’s differential approach in Article 236. The findings indicate that the evidences supporting the aggravation of punishment for non-Muslims lack sufficient strength, whereas robust and credible arguments support the equal application of tafhidh to all individuals.