‌Context & Objective: The concept of criminal duress in Iranian law is briefly addressed in Article 151 of the 2013 Islamic Penal Code, which refers only to “unbearable duress” without detailing its elements or conditions. This legal gap raises questions about what qualifies a threat as sufficient to establish duress in criminal cases. The literature in Islamic jurisprudence—across both Shi’a and Sunni schools—contains scattered discussions on various conditions for a threat to be considered coercive, such as its severity, unlawfulness, and immediacy. The aim of this study is to systematically analyze these diverse views and determine which interpretations provide the most coherent and applicable framework. The central research question is: What are the essential conditions that a threat must meet to constitute valid duress in Islamic criminal law?
 ‌Method & Approach: This research adopts a doctrinal approach, focusing on the comparative analysis of Shi’a and Sunni jurisprudential sources. Through an interpretive review of classical and contemporary legal texts, the study identifies and evaluates different scholarly opinions on the conditions necessary for the realization of a valid threat in cases of duress. The analysis seeks to reconcile varying perspectives and extract a practical legal doctrine aligned with both jurisprudential principles and modern criminal justice needs.
 ‌Findings: The study reveals that, for a threat to establish criminal duress, it must fulfill multiple criteria. These include being unlawful (even if not criminally punishable), serious in nature, and either actual or imminent. Furthermore, the threat must create a genuine sense of fear in the coerced individual at the time of compliance. Notably, the study finds that threats concerning future actions can still be valid if the fear persists and influences the coerced action. It also recognizes the legitimacy of self-directed threats under certain specific circumstances.
 ‌Conclusion: The research concludes that a comprehensive understanding of criminal duress in Islamic jurisprudence requires recognition of nuanced and context-specific conditions. The unlawfulness of the threat is a critical criterion, and the presence of fear at the time of action is pivotal—even if the threat pertains to a future event. By integrating selected juristic interpretations from both Shi’a and Sunni traditions, the study offers a more precise legal standard for evaluating duress in criminal law, thus contributing to both doctrinal clarity and legal reform in Islamic penal systems.