نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دکترا حقوق جزا و جرمشناسی ، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی،دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، تهران، ایران
2 استادیار حقوق جزا و جرم شناسی، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه علم و فرهنگ، تهران، ایران.
3 دانشیار حقوق جزا و جرم شناسی، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه علم و فرهنگ، تهران، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
This study undertakes a comparative examination of the factors and conditions leading to the abatement of qiṣāṣ al nafs (retribution in homicide) in the jurisprudence of the five major Islamic schools. The significance of this inquiry lies in its contribution to criminal justice and its influence on the formulation of laws based on Islamic legal principles. The research method is descriptive–analytical, relying on authoritative textual sources. The findings reveal several shared causes of abatement: pardon and reconciliation by the heirs of the victim, the offender’s death or escape, witness retraction, withdrawal of confession, conflict of evidences, and harm to a third party during execution. These commonalities highlight the Sharia’s concern for preserving life and exercising caution in matters of blood. Despite these similarities, notable differences emerge. In Imami jurisprudence, pardon or reconciliation by all heirs nullifies qiṣāṣ. Partial pardon allows remaining heirs to pursue retribution after compensating the pardoning party. In the four Sunni schools, however, pardon and reconciliation generally require unanimous consent and are usually tied to compensation. Regarding the offender’s death, Imami jurists typically restrict recovery of blood money (diyya) to the estate, though some sources also mention recourse to the extended family. Shafi‘i jurists explicitly allow recourse to the ʿāqila if no estate exists. On inheritance of the right to qiṣāṣ, all schools accept its transfer, but when the killer is the sole heir, Imami jurists consider the right extinguished and assign the diyya to the public treasury. Some Sunni schools adopt different interpretations. In cases of witness retraction or conflicting evidences, consensus exists on the abatement of qiṣāṣ, though the scope of doubt and financial liability of witnesses varies. The study concludes that these divergences reflect deeper jurisprudential foundations in analyzing criminal responsibility and may guide reforms in contemporary criminal legislation.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)