<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE ArticleSet PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD PubMed 2.7//EN" "https://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/ncbi/pubmed/in/PubMed.dtd">
<ArticleSet>
<Article>
<Journal>
				<PublisherName>Islamic Propagation Office of Qom Seminary, Khorasan Razavi Branch</PublisherName>
				<JournalTitle>Journal of Islamic Law and Jurisprudence</JournalTitle>
				<Issn>2476-7565</Issn>
				<Volume>11</Volume>
				<Issue>1</Issue>
				<PubDate PubStatus="epublish">
					<Year>2025</Year>
					<Month>05</Month>
					<Day>22</Day>
				</PubDate>
			</Journal>
<ArticleTitle>Assessing the possibility of receiving Damages Exceeding Diyah
 Through the Financial Ta'zir of the Perpetrator</ArticleTitle>
<VernacularTitle>Assessing the possibility of receiving Damages Exceeding Diyah
 Through the Financial Ta&#039;zir of the Perpetrator</VernacularTitle>
			<FirstPage>193</FirstPage>
			<LastPage>212</LastPage>
			<ELocationID EIdType="pii">77296</ELocationID>
			
<ELocationID EIdType="doi">10.22034/jrj.2025.71225.2952</ELocationID>
			
			<Language>FA</Language>
<AuthorList>
<Author>
					<FirstName>Ehsan</FirstName>
					<LastName>Khamechi</LastName>
<Affiliation>Master of Arts in Jurisprudence and Criminal Law, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran- PhD student in Criminal Law and Criminology, Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran Branch</Affiliation>

</Author>
<Author>
					<FirstName>Mostafa</FirstName>
					<LastName>Masoudian</LastName>
<Affiliation>Assistant Professor of the Department of Fiqh and of Islamic Law, Shahid University ,Tehran, Iran</Affiliation>

</Author>
</AuthorList>
				<PublicationType>Journal Article</PublicationType>
			<History>
				<PubDate PubStatus="received">
					<Year>2025</Year>
					<Month>02</Month>
					<Day>26</Day>
				</PubDate>
			</History>
		<Abstract>&quot;Diyah&quot; is one of the endorsed decrees in Islam, which is paid to the victim or their family in return for unintentional crimes. After the concept of &quot;Diyah&quot; was reflected in the laws following the victory of the Islamic Revolution, the issue of how to pay damages exceeding the &quot;Diyah&quot; has consistently been a significant topic in scholarly circles. One approach to compensate for such damages is to obligate the perpetrator based on financial &quot;Ta&#039;zir&quot; (discretionary punishment). Therefore, the central question of the present study is to examine the legitimacy of receiving these damages based on the &quot;Ta&#039;zir&quot; of the perpetrator. The outcome of this descriptive-analytical research is that, considering the documentary or indicative flaws in the narrations cited to prove the permissibility of financial &quot;Ta&#039;zir&quot; for the perpetrator, as well as the exclusion of the principle of &quot;Ta&#039;zir as the ruler sees fit&quot; to substantiate this view, the arguments for the view of non-permissibility, namely, the fixed amount of &quot;Diyah,&quot; the prohibition of double punishment, the principle of non-guardianship, and the principle of innocence, will be without opposition. Therefore, considering the soundness of the arguments for the view of non-permissibility, the only way to compensate for damages exceeding the &quot;Diyah&quot; is to actualize the rate of &quot;Diyah&quot; in accordance with the &quot;Diyah&quot; stipulated in Islamic law and to secure it through public institutions.</Abstract>
			<OtherAbstract Language="FA">&quot;Diyah&quot; is one of the endorsed decrees in Islam, which is paid to the victim or their family in return for unintentional crimes. After the concept of &quot;Diyah&quot; was reflected in the laws following the victory of the Islamic Revolution, the issue of how to pay damages exceeding the &quot;Diyah&quot; has consistently been a significant topic in scholarly circles. One approach to compensate for such damages is to obligate the perpetrator based on financial &quot;Ta&#039;zir&quot; (discretionary punishment). Therefore, the central question of the present study is to examine the legitimacy of receiving these damages based on the &quot;Ta&#039;zir&quot; of the perpetrator. The outcome of this descriptive-analytical research is that, considering the documentary or indicative flaws in the narrations cited to prove the permissibility of financial &quot;Ta&#039;zir&quot; for the perpetrator, as well as the exclusion of the principle of &quot;Ta&#039;zir as the ruler sees fit&quot; to substantiate this view, the arguments for the view of non-permissibility, namely, the fixed amount of &quot;Diyah,&quot; the prohibition of double punishment, the principle of non-guardianship, and the principle of innocence, will be without opposition. Therefore, considering the soundness of the arguments for the view of non-permissibility, the only way to compensate for damages exceeding the &quot;Diyah&quot; is to actualize the rate of &quot;Diyah&quot; in accordance with the &quot;Diyah&quot; stipulated in Islamic law and to secure it through public institutions.</OtherAbstract>
		<ObjectList>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">damages</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Diyah</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Victim</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Offender</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Financial Ta'</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">zir</Param>
			</Object>
		</ObjectList>
<ArchiveCopySource DocType="pdf">http://jostar-fiqh.maalem.ir/article_77296_4e36650071d7ac7991e5397907bdf482.pdf</ArchiveCopySource>
</Article>
</ArticleSet>
