جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « non-muslim » در نشریات گروه « فقه و حقوق »

One of the crimes in Shiite criminal jurisprudence is the crime of "Appearance of drunken non-Muslims in the streets and public places". The crime in question, for the first time has entered the Iranian legal system with the enactment of the Islamic Penal Code in 1392. However, the law is silent on describing the circumstances of the crime. According to the findings of the study, "drunken" or the strong and overt drunkenness is a condition between mild drunkenness and involuntariness. In this case, the perpetrator exhibits drunken behaviors, but he is aware of his behaviors. Also, this crime is committed by only the appearance of non-Muslims in public places and passages; therefore, there is no need to be seen by another. Apart from this, the legislator has chosen the Ta'zir punishment for this crime, contrary to the popular opinion that the punishment is Hadd. This deliberate deviation from the Hadd punishment and the adoption of an unpopular Fatwa in this regard and some other articles in the field of Hadds, is due to the use of the "policy of reducing the implementation of Hadd punishments". The legislature, within the framework of the fourth article of the constitution and the acceptance of the realities of the contemporary world, seeks to reduce the implementation of Hadd punishments.

Non-Muslim is a member of the Islamic community, who does not believe in an essentially-accepted principle of Islam, i.e., acknowledging Muhammad as the last prophet of God. According to Islamic jurisprudence, non-Muslims can obtain the citizenship of an Islamic country by accepting the ‘Dhimmah’ contract and enjoy its legal privileges as long as they do not commit any crime there. In crimes committed against individuals, in addition to retaliation and amnesty, paying the blood money to innocent victim(s) is also legitimate. Most of Islamic jurisprudents from the sects of Imamiyyah, Malikiyyah, Shafi‘iyyah, Hanbaliyyah, Dhahiriyyah, and Abadhiyyah believe that the blood money of non-Muslims is lower than that of Muslims. However, it seems that reasons given for this theory is not compatible with the significantly-expressed goal of the God in realizing social justice. The majority of documents referred to for such inequality have invalid references. It seems that the issues like ‘Dhimmah’ and ‘Jizya’, which have been considered in Islam for non-Muslims, have been all related to the certain time and situation in which these issues have appeared for the first time, and there is not any rationale for generalizing such cases to other times and situations. The blood money-related rules for non-Muslims are sub-clauses of other changeable rules; thus, they may vary in different times and situations. A clear difference among various references for non-Muslims’ blood money proves the above-mentioned issues. Conducting a descriptive study on the opinions of both Shia and Sunni jurisprudents and analyzing the way of their reasoning, the present research rejects the influence of a victim’s religion on the amount of his/her blood money.

According to Article 266 of the Islamic Penal Code (adopted in 1392), non-Muslims are sentenced to eighty lashes if they use intoxicants publicly. The legislator has been silent about defining and explaining the concept of “publicly” as well as explicitly explaining the circumstances of its occurrence, so the fundamental question arises that the use of intoxications by non-Muslims how should be perpetrated or what characteristics should it have to say him have publicly used it? Judgments from the judiciary suggest that in order to commit this crime, non-Muslims must commit drunkenness in public and in a place that is open to the public without scrutiny. This must also be done notoriously. In addition, non-Muslim’s behavior must be seen by others. It should be noted that the viewer of the perpetrator must always be a Muslim who maintains the forbidenness of intoxicants; therefore, publicly using intoxications will not take place in front of other non-Muslims, even if intoxicants are forbidden in their religion or in front of a Muslim who is consuming intoxicants himself. This research has been written using descriptive and analytical methods and with the approach of documentary studies.

The effect of the Non-Muslim adulterer expressing being Muslim after committing the hadd crime on the feasibility of abolition of hadd punishment in the form of absolute or the feasibility of its turning into ta'zir punishment (punishment for offenses at the discretion of the judge (Qadi) or ruler of the state), is one of the complex jurisprudential issues that Article 224 of the Islamic Penal Code of Islamic Republic of Iran has not dealt with. Many jurists have generally refrained from raising this important issue. However, some have also examined the issue, and there have been viewpoints for and against it. From the collection of arguments, it is clear that the expansion and mitigation of non-Muslim adulterer expressing being Muslim is due to the moral sanctity of the Islamic society. The non-Muslim person has violated the sanctity of Islam with his criminal behavior and has been sentenced to death; and when they become Muslims at the appropriate time, due to the sanctity of Islam, the hadd punishment for him will be abolished and he can be penalized at the discretion of the lawmaker. Therefore, by an analytical-critical examination of the documented arguments of these theories and considering other religious and intellectual arguments that have been typically neglected from the point of view of some jurists in this field in order to collect the most opposing and agreeing jurisprudential viewpoints, this study has come to the theory of murder hadd punishment with the feasibility of turning into ta'zir, only if Islam is expressed before the crime is proven in criminal courts, and has made it necessary to specify it in the Islamic Penal Code.

Nowadays due to the vast scope of residence of the Muslims, migration and spreading relations with other nations and religions of the world, it is necessary for any Muslim to know that the Qur’an has confirmed the marriage between the Muslim men and the chaste women of Ahl Al Kitab (those believing in the Bibles) and prohibited any matrimony between Muslims and the unbelievers. The present paper has tries to explore the different aspects of the issue and explain the ways of legitimacy of marriage of the Muslim man with the followers of the other Heavenly religions.

Division and diversification of human beings into two categories of Muslim and unbeliever (kāfir) means neglecting to include another category of human beings. This division has a long historical background and seems to be logical to reason and undeniable from the sharia perspective. Studies clarify that there are arguments sufficiently convincing for acceptance of a third category of human beings. Actualization of the rubric of Islam requires components and elements, without which this rubric would not actualize. Similarly, for the emergence of the rubric kufr there needs to be such components and circumstances as denial and disclaiming voluntarily, knowledge, and free will. With the lack of components, neither kufr would be actualized nor would Islam penetrate into hearts and behaviors. Besides, the conceptual contrast between Islam and kufr is in such a way that the acceptance of the third group is not faced with rational obstacles and difficulties in terms of confirmation and with prohibition by sharia in terms of verification. Therefore, the untruth and inadmissibility of the proposition “every non-Muslim is an unbeliever” is by way of universal affirmation (mūjiba-yi kulliyya) the outcome of examining the evidences. Documented by religious sources, this group can be called subjugated (mustaḍ‘af), which demand their specific legal rulings and it seems that, on the one hand, they do not enjoy the Muslims’ special advantages, and, on the other hand, they don’t lie under the restrictive and limiting rulings of the unbelievers.