چکیده:
In legislator’s view the full blood money for two healthy eyes is proved. Regarding the blind eye, one-sixth of the full blood money is determined by the legislator. In the case of the healthy eye of individuals with one-sighted eye, a distinction has been made between congenital blindness and non-criminal blindness and blindness due to criminal causes. In the first case, full blood money and in the second case, half of the blood money have been determined by the legislator. The main question for which the present dissertation seeks to find an answer is how much blood money has to be proven if the healthy and blind eyes of a person are destroyed as a result of a single crime or if the blind eye and the eyesight benefit of the other eye are destroyed? The capacity of the Islamic Penal Code in this regard is to justify the verdict of one full blood money and one sixth of it based on Articles 588, 589 and 691 I. P. C. to the judges of the courts. Although in the view of the former jurists the issue has been neglected, the referendum of contemporary jurists shows the difference between them. In this regard, there are totally three opinions: 1. there is a group that dictate a full blood money for the sighted eye. Considering the blind eye, the same group is divided into two groups: some believe in the proof of the indemnity and some speak of the blood money of the unhealthy eye. 2. Some have voted for half of the blood money for the sighted eye and one third of it for the blind eye. 3. Some also consider the judicial decree of a full blood money as a precaution. The author also considers the judicial decree of a full blood money to be valid and obvious as the requirement of jurisprudential principles. Extracting and adjusting the due principles, the present study expresses the principles of fatwas and evaluates them. Through the synergy of the principles and ijtihad method, this study strengthens the latter view. Also proposing amendments to articles of the Islamic Penal Code, it tries to provide the necessary arrangements for judges in courts to issue rulings in accordance with jurisprudential teachings.
خلاصه ماشینی:
١. The Narration of Abdullah ibn Sinan from Imam al-Sadiq (AS) Ali ibn Ibrahim, from his father, from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Abi Nasr, from Abdullah ibn Sinan, from Abu Abdullah (AS): “He said: Whatever there are two of in the body, half of the Diyah is due for it, like the hands and the eyes.
The Narration of Halabi from Imam al-Sadiq (AS) “Ali, from his father, from Ibn Abi Umair, from Halabi, from Abu Abdullah (AS): Regarding a man whose back is broken “He said: The full Diyah is due for it, and the Diyah for the eyes, and half of the Diyah for one of them, etc.
The Narration of Ibrahim ibn Umar “Muhammad ibn Ya’qub, from Ali ibn Ibrahim, from his father, from Muhammad ibn Khalid al-Barqi, from Hammad ibn Isa, from Ibrahim ibn Umar, from Abu Abdullah (AS) who said: “Amir al-Mu’minin (AS) ruled in the case of a man who struck another man with a stick, causing him to lose his hearing, sight, tongue, intellect, and sexual organ, and severing his ability to have intercourse while he was alive, with six Diyahs.
٢. The Narration of Muhammad bin Qays from Imam al-Baqir (AS) “Ali bin Ibrahim, about his father, and Muhammad bin Yahya, about Ahmad bin Muhammad, both from Ibn Abi Najran, about Asim bin Hamid, about Muhammad bin Qays, said: Abu Ja’far (AS) ruled that in the case of a one-eyed man whose healthy eye was injured and removed, that one eye of the perpetrator be removed and half of the Diyah be paid to the injured party, and if the injured party wishes, he can take the full Diyah and waive the retaliation for the perpetrator's healthy eye.
(
, 
, 
)
