نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دکتری دانشگاه علوم قضایی و خدمات اداری
2 هیئت علمی دانشگاه علوم قضایی و خدمات اداری
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
According to the views of jurists and Article 463 of the 2013 Islamic Penal Code, the responsibility of the ‘aqilah (the male relatives of the offender) is limited to paying diyyah in cases of pure mistake (khata’ al-mahz). The jurists of the Imamiyya school have also restricted this responsibility to cases in which the offender is a Muslim. The main question in this study concerns the party responsible for paying diyyah in cases of unintentional homicide committed by a non-Muslim. This research, based on a descriptive-analytical method, examines existing opinions on this issue, presents the relevant evidence, and critically evaluates the arguments through a method of comparative analysis. The findings indicate that a dhimmi offender, according to the authentic narration of Abi Walad, is responsible for paying diyyah if financially able; otherwise, the Imam or the Islamic ruler is responsible for payment. A non-dhimmi non-Muslim—whether musta'min, muhadana, or harbi—is personally responsible for payment if solvent, based on the principles of individual criminal responsibility and the presumption of innocence. However, if insolvent, the diyyah becomes a debt upon the offender, and, according to the Qur’anic verse “And if the debtor is in hardship, then [let there be] postponement until ease [of payment]” (Qur’an 2:280), a period of respite should be granted until the offender is able to pay. The study critiques Article 471 of the 2013 Islamic Penal Code, arguing that the article lacks generality and addresses only part of the issue by focusing on some categories of non-Muslims. Moreover, the article’s stipulation that the state’s responsibility for paying diyyah depends on the passage of an “appropriate period” is unfounded in Islamic law and lacks any clear criteria.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)