المؤلف
استاذ فی کلیة العلوم والمعارف المصطفی
المستخلص
الكلمات الرئيسية
الموضوعات الرئيسية
عنوان المقالة [Persian]
المؤلف [Persian]
Among the problems of retribution is the rule of interference. This rule includes the interference of retribution of a member and the soul and the interference of retribution of members, each of which has a wide scope. The subject of this article is the interference of retribution of a member in the soul. The Iranian legislator has stated various forms of interference in articles (296 to 299), and the reason for the plurality is the difference of jurists. The main question is in which cases the rule of interference prevails and is it supported in terms of jurisprudential principles? By examining the thoughts of the Imamiyya jurists, it becomes clear that in cases where an intentional crime from a single blow causes transmission to the soul or an intentional crime resulting from a single blow immediately or several crimes resulting from a single blow jointly cause murder, the majority of jurists believe that interference occurs. However, there is a great deal of disagreement among jurists regarding crimes resulting from consecutive or non-consecutive blows, which stems from the conflict implied by the narrations. Therefore, some jurists have held that there is no overlap in consecutive and non-consecutive blows, while others have resolved the conflict by adhering to the rule of “the absolute is certain and the general is particular” and have ruled on overlap in consecutive blows and on non-consecutive blows. The claim of researchers that some of the aforementioned forms lack a jurisprudential basis is not justified.
الكلمات الرئيسية [Persian]
القرآن الكريم