The Opinion of Experts with Regard to the Amputation of a Paralyzed Hand in Case of Retaliation as Compared to Muharabah and Theft (with Emphasis on Sahib Javaher's Dissenting Viewpoint)

From the viewpoint of the famous jurists and Sahib Javaher, one of the conditions for implementation of retaliation against a body part is the equality of the parts in being healthy and the absence of any fear that retaliation is likely to lead to the perpetrator's death or injury to another part of his body. Therefore, a healthy hand is not retaliated for a paralyzed hand, while it is permissible to retaliate a paralyzed hand for a healthy hand unless, according to the experts, there is a fear that retaliation may lead to the criminal's death. The famous jurists, unlike Sahib Javaher, have not considered the opinion of experts to be a condition regarding theft and Muharabah. Accordingly, the main question is that what is the difference between taking into account the opinion of experts in the retaliation against a body part and punishments of amputating the hands of thieves and Muharibs? The present paper, using a descriptive-analytical method, has concluded that as regards theft, reference to the general rulings of Quran, does not include hand amputation in case of fearing from the criminal's death; therefore, in addition to refusing the hadiths raised by famous jurists and taking into account the objections raised against the proofs related to Muharabah, considers Sahib Javaher's viewpoint to be stronger, due to the principle of absence of certitude and the necessity of being causious to reserve the lives of people. Therefore, the ruling of amputation of a paralyzed hand in case of retaliation against a body part is different from its amputation in case of theft and Muharabah and the paralyzed part should not be amputated when according to the experts, there is a fear that amputation may lead to the criminal's death. However, unlike, article 395 of the Islamic Penal Code, there is a distinction between the rulings of amputation of paralyzed and defective parts; since that article, in both case,  gives the victim the choice between retaliation against the criminal or the payment of blood money while according to hadiths, the above said ruling belongs to a defective part and the ruling of a paralyzed part is retaliation and in case of danger of the criminal’s death, it is reduced to blood money.