چکیده:
The importance of the issue of life and physical health is such that the intellect independently dictates the necessity of caution in actions that can harm it, and the Normative Conduct and Assumptions of the Wise has confirmed this ruling. The ruling spirit of Islamic Sharia, along with reason, pays special attention to observing caution in the blood in the criminal response against criminals. This principle has led Islamic jurists in the chapters of criminal jurisprudence to take a minimalist approach in Issuing fatwas against physical integrity by applying the precautionary basis.The present article has tried to examine the position of The precautionary principle in blood in Imami jurisprudence with a descriptive-analytical method. The findings of the research show that the principle in question is not a jurisprudential rule based on a single Narrative evidence, nor is it a practical principle based on the mere rule of reason, but its root should be found in the Spirit of Shari'a that both reason and Narrative evidence are based on They indicate its correctness. This principle applies to both corporal punishments against life and organs, and has both positive and negative functions in the criminal realm.
خلاصه ماشینی:
The statement that since the claim of the basis of the taste of Sharia on the obligation of precaution is based on certain texts, it cannot be considered an independent evidence, is also rejected; first, the minor premise, as previously mentioned, is incorrect; because the aforementioned basis does not rely on an authoritative text that would, in that case, justify the theory of its being a jurisprudential rule, and this very matter has compelled some researchers to deduce precaution in blood not from explicit texts that organize the evidences regarding the severity of the punishment for murder and the sanctity of the believer (Ganji, 1392, Session Minutes 140), and this does not mean anything other than the absence of a specific text in this regard, which is why these arguments have been resorted to; second, the major premise, which states that the taste of Sharia should not be based on a text, is also incorrect; because the taste of Sharia is not an evidence alongside other evidences; rather, it is based on evidences such as reason and text, whereby due to the lack of clarity of a specific text or a rational evidence that can independently and beyond any doubt establish the ruling, the jurist, regardless of the chain of transmission and the indication of these documents, becomes convinced of the fatwa by focusing on their outcome, which provides him with certainty.
(
, 
, 
)
