Volume 6, Issue 2 (2021)                   2021, 6(2): 84-92 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print


1- PhD student, Department of Jurisprudence and Fundamentals of Islamic Law, Khomein Branch, Islamic Azad University, Khomein, Iran.
2- Assistant Professor, Department of Jurisprudence and Fundamentals of Islamic Law, Khomein Branch, Islamic Azad University, Khomein, Iran (Corresponding Author). , amirmola1400@vatanmail.ir
3- Assistant Professor, Department of Jurisprudence and Fundamentals of Islamic Law, Khomein Branch, Islamic Azad University, Khomein, Iran.
Abstract:   (937 Views)
Purpose: The jurists differ on interference and non-interference in most jurisprudence chapters, and there are also differences of opinions regarding interference or non-interference in Qisas nafs, organ and diya. Therefore, the main purpose of this research is to examine the opinions of jurists regarding interference or non-interference. In retribution, it is the self, the member, and the ransom.
Materials and Methods: The collection method of the current research is a library with the technique of descriptive and analytical method, which is based on the available sources and literature.
Findings: The jurists disagree about the interference and non-interference in most of the jurisprudential chapters, and there are differences of opinion about the interference or non-interference in the retribution of the soul, limbs and blood money. Retribution is the soul, limbs and blood money, which has been concluded by the method of library collection and descriptive and analytical methods. That is, according to general and specific reasons, the ruling should be given to interfere or not to interfere, and there are the same three views regarding retribution and blood money: That is, non- interference, interference and detail between the crimes resulting from a blow and the crimes committed. It is one of the many blows that jurists believe in the first and the second in the absence They accept the interference.
Conclusion: It can be concluded that jurists do not have a single point of view about interference and non-interference, and each of them has addressed a specific aspect of this criminal sentence
Full-Text [PDF 395 kb]   (1459 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special
Received: 2021/05/13 | Accepted: 2021/09/19 | Published: 2021/09/22

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.