Islamic jurisprudence
hassan pourlotfollah; Mahdi Movahedi Moheb; Khosro Momeni; ahmad mortazi
Abstract
The main question is whether the agreement to change the organ subjects to qisas to a similar organ is legitimate and causes the right of qisas to be forfeited concerning the original organ? There has not been a comprehensive research research in this regard with an exception of a brief outline of some ...
Read More
The main question is whether the agreement to change the organ subjects to qisas to a similar organ is legitimate and causes the right of qisas to be forfeited concerning the original organ? There has not been a comprehensive research research in this regard with an exception of a brief outline of some examples in the codified criminal law and jurisprudence texts. This article attempts to re-examine the issue by presenting new analysis while critically studying the existing views. According to the famous Imami view, this agreement is not permissible and the right of qisas remains with the termination of the agreed organ. Therefore, it is necessary to pay the dues of the similar organs that have been cut off.The reasons of the famous view are as follows: the non-realization of the originality, the irreconcilability of the blood issue, the principle of non-substitution, the non-inclusion of the rule of body integrity, and the inclusion of the obligation of qisas in the original place. Indeed, due to the invalidity of the said agreement, according to the famous view, the left hand exchange (i.e. the fall of revenge from the right hand) has not been realized and on the other hand, the same exchange (left hand) has also been cut off.According to the second view, agreeing to amputate a similar limb instead of the main limb causes the right of qisas to fall and turn it into ransom. In such cases, on the one hand, the victim is entitled to receive diya for his right hand, and on the other, due to the amputation of criminal's left hand, he is required to pay diya. In fact, agreeing on left-handed qisas instead of right-handed qisas is like forgiving the victim of right-handed qisas in exchange for left-handed qisas. Of course, it should be maintained that victim with left-handed who agreed on qisas has abandoned right-handed qisas, not that he has turned it into diya since if his goal was to receive the diya for his right hand, he could demand it from the criminal, and there was no need for the agreed qisas of the left hand.According to the third point of view, in practice, there is an exchange between the place of qisas and its similar organ, and the similar organ replaces the retaliated organ, which will result in the fall of the victim's right of qisas. The evidence of the third view are the implied amnesty of the agreement, the possibility of a change in the organ's qisas and reference to the rules of harmlessness and exclusion.The present article, with a descriptive and analytical method, while critically examining the jurisprudential foundations of the mentioned viewpoints and giving a reasoned preference to the promise of deserving punishment as a result of the agreed qisas of the similar organ, believes that such agreements and compromises can be based on. He considered it to be correct and legitimate and considered its provisions to be enforceable. In this regard, while studying the sayings and proofs of the jurists, by presenting proofs beyond the documents that have been presented for the third point of view, this opinion has been strengthened, the proofs of the illegitimacy of the agreement on the same organ's reparations are also disputed.The pieces evidence of the selected point of view are as follows:Analyzing the issue based on the aspect of the right of qisasThe basic rule in law is that the authority is in the hands of the right holder, and transferability, revocation, compromise, pardon, and forgiveness are among its accessories. So, first of all, since revenge is a special right of the victim, then it must be possible to judge the legitimacy of such an agreement. Secondly, considering the fact that the tortfeasor, even for free, can waive his right, then as a priority, he will be able to waive his right of qisas by agreeing to the qisas of the similar organ. Thirdly, due to the personal nature of the right to qisas in crimes against the soul, it is not possible to execute qisas without demanding compensation from the victim. Therefore, ruling to invalidate the agreement and re-implementation of qisas is contrary to this Muslim rule.Analyzing the problem in terms of substantive similarityBased on numerous pieces of evidence, there is a balance between the interests and functions of similar organs; which can be cited in order to prove the legitimacy of the aforementioned agreement.Applying the verse of qisas; From the honorable verse "Write down against them, that the soul is in the soul and the eye is in the eye and..." (Ma'idah/45), which explains the law of execution of qisas due to the necessity of similarity, it can be used that the paired body parts that are opposite each other and the ruling of qisas. They are exported, regardless of the right and left, they are considered similar to each other.Habib Sajestani's narration from Imam Baqir (a.s.): "Regarding the rights of Muslims, where a person has a hand, the hand should be placed against the hand..."Homogenization of similar organs in the verse; The chapters on limb amputation are used in the works of jurists, whose view of similar limbs is almost likeness and ruling on punishment of left hand in case of lack of right hand, based on this basis.From the point of view of custom, the organs of the pair are considered similar, and characteristics such as right and left are not considered by custom.Problem analysis based on the philosophy of qisas; The main purpose of the law is to legislate qisas punishment, deterrence, providing security and life of the society and healing the wounded feelings of the victim and the society. It seems that both of the aforementioned goals can be achieved with the agreement of similar organs.Arrange rational purpose for agreement.First: It is possible that rational and valuable effects and benefits will be obtained from the said agreement. Secondly: It is possible that the motive of benevolence is also desired in the qisas of the similar organ.Requirement of No Harm and The Dar'e RulesThe verdict of non- qisas ultimately leads to the qisas of two life organs for one victim. Therefore, referring to the harmless rule, the fall of the right of qisas against the victim is explained.Also, the rule of Dar'e, also includes qisas, and with the qisas of a similar organ, the legitimacy of re-implementation of qisas is questioned, the fall of the right of qisas seems more appropriate.Legal evidencesAlthough the legislature of Iran has not explicitly commented on this matter, according to the articles 347, 361, 363 and 365 of the Islamic Penal Code, conciliation and agreeability of the right of qisas, in each of the stages of prosecution, proceedings and execution, has clearly accepted and considered the right of qisas to fall and the hypothesis of this article is confirmed.
