جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « قصاص دندان » در نشریات گروه « فقه و حقوق »

According to general principles and references to valid verses and narrations, tooth, like other human body parts, is subject to retribution. However, there is a dispute among scholars of the Imami sect regarding the ruling on retribution for tooth fracture. They can be divided into three groups: some believe in the permissibility of retribution for tooth fracture, some believe it is not permissible, and some remain silent on the issue. In 2013, the legislator of the Islamic Republic of Iran accepted the theory of permissibility of retribution in Article 412 of the Penal Code. The proponents of permissibility rely on evidence from Quranic verses (Al-Baqarah, 194) and some narrations. After examining the presented evidence, this paper concludes that the reliance of proponents on the permissibility of retribution is comprehensive, whether it is specifically or generally related to the tooth, as it does not meet the conditions for exemption from retribution under the principle of non-retribution for bones. Although the implementation of retribution is subject to the absence of other obstacles, this paper, by examining the general principles and references in the issue, proves the accepted viewpoint in Islamic Penal Law regarding retribution.

According to the generalities and absolutes of jurisprudential arguments, the tooth has also Qisas (can be retaliated) like other parts of the human body. However, equality or inequality of place in qisas of teeth has been the subject of controversy among Imamiyah jurists. On the one hand, most of jurists believe that in case a person's tooth is pulled out as a result of a crime, equality in place is a condition for proving qisas, and on the other hand, few jurists do not consider equality in place as a condition for proving qisas and without paying attention to the need for equality in place, they have considered the mere existence of an example to be sufficient. Most of the arguments in proving their claim are referring to the verse "al-Sin bi al-Sin " which means a tooth for a tooth,  (Surah Ma'idah, 45) and some narrations, as well as relying on consensus of the jurists. The present study, after examining the arguments presented, has concluded that the jurists' reliance to the previously mentioned verse is incomplete. Contrary to their reliance, the referring to the above verse confirms the unpopular views of jurists. The referred narration also has weakness of the document and the claimed consensus is also subject to evidence. Therefore, the present paper proves the unpopular view by rejecting the arguments of most jurists, generalities, and absolutes in the issue.