نوع مقاله : پژوهشی (داوری عادی)
نویسنده
دانشآموخته موسسه عالی فقه و علوم اسلامی / تحت اشراف آیت الله خامنهای دام ظله
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]
The retention of urine and feces is an important human benefit, the decline of which has a significant impact on the quality of human life; therefore, this study examines the jurisprudential and legal foundations of blood money due to the failure to retain urine and feces in Imami jurisprudence and the Islamic Penal Code. The findings show that in the event of permanent loss of these benefits, based on reliable narrations such as the reliable narrations of Ghiyath ibn Ibrahim and Ishaq ibn Ammar, full blood money is fixed, and with the loss of both, multiple blood money must be paid; the legislator has followed this view in Articles 544, 705 and unanimous opinion 860. Also, based on the principle of non-interference, the blood money for the crime that resulted in the inability to control urine and feces must be paid; of course, if there is a connection between the crime and the loss of benefit, only the blood money for the benefit is paid. The legislator has accepted this view in Articles 545 and 546. In certain cases, such as a broken coccyx that results in incontinence (Article 651) or damage to the ajna - the area between the testicles and the anus - that results in incontinence of urine and feces (Article 652), based on jurisprudential evidence, full blood money is due for the broken coccyx and injury to the ajna, and the principle of non-interference also implies the necessity of paying blood money for benefits. The research innovation includes a comparative analysis of legal articles with jurisprudential documents, explaining the principles of interference or non-interference of blood money in crimes leading to the loss of benefits, and criticizing opposing views. This research concludes, using a descriptive-analytical method and referring to library sources, that the Iranian legal system has mainly acted in accordance with Imami jurisprudence, and only the legal ruling on temporary incontinence of urine and the interpretation of "cause of incontinence of urine or feces" in Article 652 need to be revised.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)