Ashkan Naeimi
Abstract
The significant point regarding the proof of non-sexual hudud (pandering, qadhf, wine drinking, theft, muharebeh, insulting the prophet Muhammad, magic, and irtidad) is whether two confessions are required or merely one confession is sufficient? Is there a general rule regarding the above hudud, or the ...
Read More
The significant point regarding the proof of non-sexual hudud (pandering, qadhf, wine drinking, theft, muharebeh, insulting the prophet Muhammad, magic, and irtidad) is whether two confessions are required or merely one confession is sufficient? Is there a general rule regarding the above hudud, or the rules vary from one hadd to another? This argument can be presented in two aspects: general evidence for all the hudud, and particular evidence for each one of the hudud. In general evidence, apart from Al-dar’ (the prevention rule), there is no valid reason that necessitates two confessions or suffices one confession. Al-dar’ can also be useful in case of doubt and if there is no evidence to remove doubts. The particular evidence is also not valid for the above cases, yet there are some traditions with respect to theft that if their reputation can make up for their lack of validity, then two confessions are required. Thus, it is possible to resort to priority analogy in those hudud that are severe than theft, but if the above reasoning is not accepted, it is not possible to act accordingly. Finally, most fuqahā's fatwas imply that there must be two confessions and one confession cannot be sufficient in removing the doubts and Al-dar’ rule necessitates two confessions in all the mentioned hudud.
khosro momeni; hasan pourltfallah
Abstract
There are plenty of dissidences about the conflict of confessions’s decree. Law-giver has adopted quite a different stand to this problem in modern Islamic penal code in contrast with the former code and the jurisconsults’s dominant opinion. Because the jurisconsults’s dominant opinion ...
Read More
There are plenty of dissidences about the conflict of confessions’s decree. Law-giver has adopted quite a different stand to this problem in modern Islamic penal code in contrast with the former code and the jurisconsults’s dominant opinion. Because the jurisconsults’s dominant opinion is based on traditions that are encountered a serious doubts, we believe that it is difficult to admit it, too. But, in our opinion the modern law-giver’s stand can be criticized, too. Because we don’t have access to a valid traditional evidence, in our opinion when there are conflicting confessions and we don’t have certainty about collusion among who confess we should remove retaliation and blood money on who confess and permit to avenger of blood to refer to public treasury, and if we have certainty about collusion among who confess, we should decree that avenger of blood can refer to each of them accordance with his confession. Keywords: Confession, Conflict of confessions Murder, Paying the blood money from the public treasury