چکیده:
Among the educational needs of medical science students is autopsy and the dissection of deceased bodies. Since this issue does not have a long history, past jurists have not specifically discussed its legal ruling; therefore, the question remains regarding the jurisprudential rulings of this matter: what is the primary ruling of this act? And what matters must be considered in performing it? The present writing aims to discuss some issues related to this topic and answer some questions in this field. After posing the problem and providing a brief explanation regarding the 'Principle of Permissibility' (Asl al-Ibahah) as the primary principle regarding objects and actions, it examines the evidence that might be cited to deviate from this principle in the issue of body dissection. Most of these evidences consist of: 1- Narrations that indicate the prohibition of 'Muthla' (mutilation). 2- Evidences that indicate the necessity of paying blood money (Diyah) due to the cutting of the deceased's limbs. 3- Narrations that indicate respect for the body of a Muslim deceased. In this article, we have reached the results that body dissection is different from Muthla, and the necessity of Diyah does not have a definitive correlation with religious prohibition; likewise, body dissection while observing religious etiquettes does not necessitate disrespect to the body of the deceased; therefore, there is no strong reason for
خلاصه ماشینی:
4), while ruling on the necessity of paying blood money regarding the amputation of parts of the deceased's body, has stated that the heir of the deceased inherits nothing from this wealth, but rather it is spent on paths of closeness to God Almighty on behalf of the deceased, and the evidence for this ruling is also a narration; however, Sayyid Murtada has stated that this wealth belongs to the Bait al-Mal. The intention of these great jurists from the narration mentioned in their words is a narration that Husayn ibn Khalid has narrated in detail from Imam Musa al-Kadhim (peace be upon him), in which the Imam has said in a part of it: ...
If someone does not accept the diversion of the absolute nature of the narrations—which indicate the necessity of paying blood money due to the cutting of the deceased's limbs—from body dissection to mutilation, we say to him: there is no permanent and inseparable correlation between the ruling of the necessity of paying blood money and the ruling of religious prohibition, because Islamic scholars do not have a consensus on whether blood money is a criminal punishment, since some consider it civil compensation, and a third group has presented blood money as something that oscillates between punishment and civil compensation, and each group has provided evidence to prove its own theory (Idris, 1372: 332 to 352).
(
, 
, 
)
