چکیده:
The main question of the article is whether tens، hundreds or large numbers of people participating in the killing of an individual can be punished in retaliation? Is this sentence compatible with the spirit of Islam and its policy of criminal justice، or with the minimalistic interpretation in favor of the accused? The author hypothesizes and claims that the permission to retaliation against a community of people having participated in the homicide of an individual is inconsistent with the justice-seeking spirit of Islamic Penal Code; moreover، it is unjustified and at least ambivalent and open to doubts based on our understanding of an important and fundamental Qur’anic verse، 33 of Surah Isra (17:33). More importantly، a detailed evaluation of the provisions of conflicting but relevant narratives as well as the language of the verses of qişāş reveals that the sentence to retribution against more than one of the participants in a homicide (without specification) and also available to the choice of the victim’s heir is a clear example of the need to enforce the rule ‘ward off the hudūd by suspicion.’ Hence، the punishment of an individual among the community of participants in an act of homicide especially on the basis of the heirs’ choice and calculated by subtracting the blood money (with that diya being an independent punishment itself) seems to fulfill justice، retribution and the balance (similarity) between crime and punishment much greater than killing all participants for the murder of one person. It would be sufficient to notice the importance of research into this problem in light of the caution urged when it comes to questions of blood and honor: the more critique is made about those issues، the more consistent and closer to the truth become the sentences and rulings surrounding them. The present article aims to apply descriptive-analytic tools in order to criticize the very basis of the criminal sentence against participation in homicide.
خلاصه ماشینی:
The author's hypothesis and claim is that the permissibility of executing Qisas on a group that participated in the murder of one person is incompatible with the spirit of Islam's expansive criminal justice laws and, based on the understanding of an important and fundamental Quranic verse (Verse 33 of Surah Al-Isra), is unjustifiable and at least subject to doubt and uncertainty.
More importantly, with a precise evaluation of the provisions of conflicting yet relevant narrations and the context of the verses of Qisas, the ruling of executing more than one participant in a murder (without specific designation) at the discretion of the legal heir (wali dam) will be a clear instance of applying the rule of "warding off punishments by doubts.
In the author's view, in the discussion of criminal responsibility, no place for maximum revenge or oppression is observed anywhere in the Quran; rather, attention to flexibility and compassion is the prevailing spirit; in the four noble verses above, a kind of balance and equality between crime and punishment has been explicitly stated, and this itself indicates justice in retribution, and naturally, it is received as one of the premises and principles of the subject of the article.
In the issue under discussion, although all participants in the murder are criminals and their blood is permissible to shed before the selection of the legal heir by virtue of sovereignty, in practice, killing more than one person through Qisas constitutes Israf and has been prohibited in the Quran.
(
, 
, 
)
