The Historicity of the Jurisprudential Definion of Damie and Motalaheme Based on Medical Sciences

Imamate jurisprudents, consider Damie as a little rupture in the flesh while Motalaheme is a deep one. Hence, the place of the two injuries is the same but the depth of the rupture in Motalaheme makes the difference. This difference has been identified in Clause “b” and “p” of article 709 of the Islamic Punishment law. Furthermore, their historical understanding of the anatomy of this injury led to the concept of rapture in the flesh because they believe in order for the bleeding which is constituent of Damie, rupture in the flesh is necessary. However, contemporary anatomy explains that rupture in the flesh is not necessary for bleeding. Bleeding can occur through derma and hypoderm of the skin. This analysis adds on the hypothesis of the historicity of their definitions of the two injuries. With a descriptive-analytic approach and library study, we prove this hypothesis and make modification of their definitions on Damie and Motalaheme.