Disagreements are numerous, deep and recurrent. Among these, a small minority calls for the immediate and strict application of hodoud, seeing this as an essential precondition for truly defining a “Muslim-majority society” as “Islamic”. Others, while accepting the fact that hodoud is found in textual references (the Quran and tradition), consider that the application of hodoud as being based on movements in society must be fair and, for some, must be “ideal”. » before these injunctions can be applied. Thus, the priority is the promotion of social justice, the fight against poverty and illiteracy, etc. Finally, others, also in the minority, consider the texts relating to hodoud to be obsolete and maintain that these references have no place in contemporary Muslim societies. The majority of Muslim jurists, historically and today, are of the opinion that these punishments are generally Islamic but that the conditions under which they should be applied are almost impossible to restore. These sanctions are therefore “almost never applicable”. The hodoud would therefore serve as a “means of deterrence”, the objective of which would be to awaken the conscience of the believer to the seriousness of an act justifying such punishment. The sanctions are Islamic, but the conditions are not suitable for their application.