Discipline by beating between permissibility and criminalization.

It should be noted that one of the rules on which the Penal Code is based is that there is no crime or punishment, except on the basis of a legal text, and if there is no criminalization of an act, then it is a permissible act, because the origin of things is permissible, and this permissibility is called the original permissibility, because the provisions of the Penal Code are only restrictions on the individual freedom of the person, and therefore it can be said that "there is no restriction except by a text." As for emergency (or exceptional) permissibility, it is permissibility that is based on one of the reasons stipulated by law, or required by a provision of the law for a legally criminal act. In order to erase the criminal character of the act, as is the case for legitimate defense, as this reason erases the character of the crime from the act and thus erases from the actor all responsibility, whether civil or criminal, and this is the meaning that the act has occurred in this case a permissible reason removes and erases the character of criminalization, as a result of the street balancing between several conflicting interests and giving precedence over each other. Because it is related to the act itself and not to the person, and therefore its effect is on the act by permitting it, because the street responded with this permissibility to protect a legitimate interest, or to give priority to one interest over another when more than one interest is wrestling. Human conduct may combine legality and non-legality at the same time. It may be lawful when it concerns an interest of paramount importance to society, but the same conduct is unlawful according to the criminally protected interest that has been attacked, since wrongfulness is a characteristic attached to the act of the victim, and therefore the interest protected in accordance with the law, while we find that the legality or reason for permissibility relates to the perpetrator who aggresses the protected interest, and therefore the perpetrator is considered to have used his right to defend a first favoured interest.