جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « God’s right » در نشریات گروه « فقه و حقوق »

legislator explicitly mentioned this rule in articles 120 and 121 of the Islamic Penal Code, and according to the opinion of the famous jurists, it was considered applicable to all crimes. However, on the one hand, the disparity of opinions in the practical application of the rule in the judicial procedure and the lack of differentiation of the limits of this rule in conflict with other jurisprudential principles such as caution and innocence, and on the other hand, its unregulated application, which is apparently in conflict with the fundamental principles of criminal justice, including the certainty and certainty of punishments in The criminal policy of Islam is complicated, it requires checking and explaining the different angles of the rule. The result of the investigation shows that the channel of the Olad rule is in the cases of definite suspicions and a kind of validity in the eyes of the rational people, which causes the punishment to be rejected or converted into easier punishments. Emphasizing that merely proposing or citing an undocumented possibility cannot be accepted. Secondly, the application of the rule in crimes with the aspect of divine right and natural right is different and differentiated, in such a way that the application of the rule will be broad in crimes of divine right and narrow and limited in crimes of natural right. In this regard, articles 120 and 121 of the law consider any type of suspicion or doubt in any crime that does not have the aspect of natural rights (such as war, corruption, robbery, and blasphemy) as a general reason for not proving the crime. If there is no evidence to negate it", the allocation of "irrefutable suspicion" is considered to be the reason for not proving the crime, and Article 211 will also support this opinion

This article has drawn various kinds of conflict in implementation of punishments in jurisprudential (fiqhi) approach and from Iranian penal code’s point of view. Since the crimes and punishments have not been classified based on the seriousness and weakness of crimes it is complicated to find the ways of conflict resolution in case of conflict in implementation of punishment. The article emphasizes that one decisive criterion for conflict resolution in implementation of punishments in Islamic jurisprudence is the priority of those relating to God’s rights over those containing people’s rights. The article has shed light on the nature of God’s rights (Hagh Allah) punishments and people rights (Hagh al-Nas) punishments and the examples of each category. The article explains evidences in favor of priority of people rights over God’s rights and criticizes the position taken by Iranian penal code over the issue. At the end, the article suggests proposals for improvement of the related articles and regulations in Iranian criminal law