خلاصة:
The concept of 'cause' (sabab), alongside concepts such as 'direct actor' (mubashir) and 'assistant' (mu'awin), is one of the concepts that has a significant impact on recognizing responsibility in accidents. Therefore, understanding this concept, as well as the various foundations and viewpoints of Imami jurists regarding the concurrence of causes, is important. Famous Imami jurists believe that in the event of the concurrence of causes, one cause must be preferred over other causes, while the damage is attributed to all causes. In contrast, a group of jurists have accepted the theory of apportionment in liability, and another group has accepted the theory of equality in liability, which are more compatible with the rules. This article criticizes the foundations and arguments of the famous view regarding the concurrence of causes and finally selects the theory of equality in blood money (diya). This article does not examine financial loss; rather, it addresses the concurrence of causes in bodily harm and carefully examines various hypotheses of the issue in terms of the intention of the causes, knowledge that the intended act is inherently lethal, negligence, and the performance of an unlawful act.
ملخص الجهاز:
Muhaqqiq al-Hilli, Muqaddas al-Ardabili, Fakhr al-Muhaqqiqin, and Imam Khomeini state: tasbib consists of any act following which the consequent destruction is realized, but the cause of destruction is something else; provided that if this cause were not present, the effect of the cause would not have occurred (Shara'i al-Islam 3: 186 and 4: 237; Majma' al-Fa'idah 14: 257; Idah al-Fawa'id 2: 167 and Tahrir al-Wasilah, 2: 564).
The late Tabrizi accepts that the rule 'ma lawlahu lam yahsal al-talaf' (if it were not for which, destruction would not have occurred) is sometimes responsive in identifying the cause, but believes that this rule is not absolutely correct and that to identify the subject of blood money liability (diyah), one must first refer to the evidences of this matter; otherwise, the criterion for the real attribution of destruction to the agent will be causation (Tanqih Mabani al-Ahkam, Kitab al-Diyat 85).
(Jawahir al-Kalam fi Sharh Shara'i al-Islam 43: 146) Attributing the act to the cause prior in effect Ayatollah Borujerdi believes that according to the famous opinion, liability lies with the person whose action is more effective in causing the loss earlier than another's; because, as we explained in the example of the stone, placing the stone was the cause of the collision and the fall of the deceased.
Mirza Habibullah Rashti also believes that the famous jurists, in the case of the convergence of causes, consider the liability to be upon the cause that acts earlier than another; because, in customary view, this precedence in effect causes the loss to be attributed to the first cause and the second cause is not considered liable.
(
, 
, 
)
