To being synchronically effective, equitable and humanness, in anticipating and implementing of criminal sanctions, a ‘’penal policy’’ should utilize a range of punishments which be appropriate with the variety of crimes, diversity of criminals and difference of crime situations. This variety in quality and countity is highly considered in Islamic penal policy since establishment of fixed and certain punishments that includes ghesas, diat and hodood (retaliates, mulcts and penances), beside the flexible and uncertain punishments (taazirat). But the existence of sever dissensions among the Islamic jurists (foghaha) about the different aspects of hodood and –especially- in taazirat (discretive punishments), is the sign of incognition of the real nature of this two types of punishment. This ''juristicial ambiguity'' has been terminated to low results in use of the variety of these sanctions in legislative and judicial criminal policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The present essay, considers the different applications of these two terms (hodood and taazirat), as well as, the various juristic opinions about the extent, kinds and commands of hodood and taazirat. The first output of this research is to attract attentions to great disputes in juristic understoods about an important section of Islamic penal policy. However, the final aim of this essay is to notify about the ruining results of tendency to verbalition and negligence from the meaning and the base of Islamic juristiality (tafaghoh), which, has more harmful results in the context of policies including the criminal ones.