جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "retaliation (qisas)" در نشریات گروه "فقه و حقوق"

Based on the theory that says the retaliation (Qiṣaṣ( right is takhyīrī (choosing between two or more alternatives), the next of kin (Walī Dam) and victim are free to choose the retaliation or to ask for the blood money. On the other hand, proponents of the theory that says this right is absolute obligatoriness (taʻyīnī), believe that the next of kin and injured persons in intentional crimes do not have the right to demand blood money without criminal’s consent. Taʻyīnī theory, from the beginning, was made the basis of Islamic criminal law by the lawmaker of the Islamic Republic. However, because in practice, this theory is facing problems and negative consequences such as shed the murdered blood with impunity, in 1392/2013 the lawmaker, following some jurists, passed a law that in cases where the retaliation is conditional upon the rejection of blood money differentials (Faḍil), the next of kin do not have the right to demand blood money. Nevertheless, there are still some practical problems of Taʻyīnī theory. The domination of the theory which says retaliation right being optional (Takhyīrī) in law is the only way to solve this problems. Assuming that evidences of this theory in Imami fiqh are rare and its principles are weak, the lawmaker has not made it the basis of the law. This study has tried to prove that the theory is not rare and its fiqhi evidences are convincing.

Wisdom (Aql) is one of god’s blessings to man. In order to maintain the health of Wisdom, the holy legislator, supports against several minor and partial injuries to wisdom (Aql) and covers the damage by complete or partial Dia (blood money). Consequently, chapter five of the second part of the Islamic Penal Code is dedicated to the problems of wisdom (Aql). It seems that there are serious weaknesses in Iranian legislative criminal system in this regard which did not mentioned in the juridical books. One of the most important examples is the concept of "Atah”. Although the word “Atah” is common in a period between insane and Madness, but it does not mean insanity. Likewise, in explaining the position of this concept among mental disorders, due to the lack of interruptions in relation with the realities of the world around him as well as loss of function, it is placed in category of nervouses. In the case of retaliation in crimes which causes decline or lack of reason (Aql), the evidence of the group which agrees with the execution of punishment (Qisas) is Sound.

Standardization of multiplicity of injuries for how to get a retaliation or compensation has been a significant part of the jurisprudential doctrines about rules of Qisas. Contrary to the rule of multiplicity of crime which is one of the factors of aggravation of punishment, multiplicity of injuries has various assumptions: Sometimes a injury may be committed by one person against another person or others or by a few people against a person. It may also result from a blow or multiple blows, at a time or at different times. The jurists of the Imamieh religion have expressed different opinions in this regard. Some of them believe in interfering absolutely, Some of them believe in not-interfering absolutely, and Some of them, have a different opinion depending on the unit or multiple and consecutive or alternate blows. In the Islamic Penal Code, with the following the famous opinion in Imamieh jurisprudence and by accepting the not-interfering opinion, except in exceptional cases, provided that the multiple intentional injuries result in a multiplicity of retaliation. In this article, by analyzing the related jurisprudential doctrines, the criteria set out in the above mentioned law have been criticized and proposals for amending the law are provided.

One of the most important issues of our time in the field of medical law and jurisprudence is amputated limb/ organ transplantation after the implementation of Hadd (prescribed Corporeal Punishment) and Qisas (Retaliation), which is a matter of controversy among jurisprudents. Among the causes of this disagreement are references to texts with uncertain indications (Zanni al-Dalalah) and conflicts among ultimate religious purposes for practical regulations in the expression of Islamic rules. Furthermore, among the objectives of punishment are the disciplining of the convict, relief for the plaintiff and security for the society. Social security is the ultimate purpose of Hadd and relief for the plaintiff is the primary reason for the implementation of Qisas. Differences in the type of argument and attitude in preferring certain purposes over others have led to the emergence of three perspectives in this context: One group advocates the absolute prohibition of amputated limb/ organ transplantation including Imamyya, Hanbali, Maliki and some contemporary schools of jurisprudence. Another group advocates the absolute permissibility of amputated limb/ organ transplantation including Hanafi, Shafii and some contemporary schools of jurisprudence. The third group divides rights into Haq al-Lah (the rights of God) and Haq an-Nas (the rights of people), advocating the permissibility of transplantation under Haq al-Lah and also under Haq al-Nas but with certain conditions. The fatwa of the Jeddah Fiqh Academy and some temporary schools of jurisprudence fall into this category. Evaluations of the reasons posited by different perspectives in light of general Islamic principles and purposes bring us to the conclusion that we must differentiate between Haq al-Lah and Haq al-Nas in this issue such that amputated limb transplantation is not permissible under Haq al-Lah (Hadd for theft or Muharaba) but it is permissible under Haq al-Nas (retaliation for amputated limb/ organ) conditional on the plaintiff’s consent or limb/ organ restoration.

It is unjust to absolutely accept or deny criminal’s responsibility for damages following a murder or injury. Therefore, cases should be distinguished according to the relationship between damages and thebodily harm. The criminal may be responsible for damages occurring besides and independent of the injury. This is also the case when damages are caused indirectly by the injury, since there are multiple subjects to losses. This is so even when damages are equal to bloodwit or more. But if the crime is only a condition for the damage to take effect and also if the crime is associated with damage, the criminal is not responsible for damages and may only be sentenced to retaliation (Qisas) and bloodwit (Diya).