چکیده:
Given the importance of the discussion on criminal responsibility, the subject of the responsibility of one ignorant of a ruling is an important and fundamental topic. Therefore, the limits of the criminal responsibility of an individual ignorant of a ruling are considered an important and influential issue in relationships between persons. For this reason, various opinions have been presented regarding this subject. An ignorant person should not be considered absolutely responsible; rather, in accordance with established rational and Sharia principles and rules, certain criteria must be formulated to waive the responsibility of the ignorant person, and the rule 'ignorance of the law does not waive responsibility' should be moderated. The aim of this article is to explain the position of ignorance of the ruling and its impact on criminal responsibility in the views of Imami jurists. The results of the investigations show that from an Islamic perspective, the rule 'ignorance of the ruling waives criminal responsibility, unless the ignorant person was a negligent observer' applies.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Various narrations have also been reported regarding the above matter, which indicates a reached clarification (bayan wasil), for example: Muhammad bin Muslim says: I asked Imam Baqir: We invited a man to Islam and he embraced Islam, then he drank wine, committed adultery, and consumed usury, and nothing regarding the lawful and the unlawful had been clarified to him; will a prescribed punishment (hadd) be applied to him despite his ignorance?
Second: It is stated in the Sahifa of Abu Ubaidah Haddaa: Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (as) said: "If I find a non-Arab person who has embraced Islam, but nothing of the divine rulings (adultery, theft, and wine) has been told to him yet, and he goes and commits adultery, steals, or drinks wine, I will not implement the hadd upon him as long as he was ignorant of these matters, unless evidence is presented that he was aware of these rulings" (Amili, n.
The first category (the principle of innocence, the rule of prevention (dar'), the rule of the ugliness of punishment without clarification, and the narrations received based on the excuse of the ignorant) indicated that legal ignorance is effective on criminal responsibility; these evidences are absolute and include both unintentional (qusur) and negligent (taqsir) ignorance, and they are also general, encompassing both legal and factual ignorance.
(
, 
, 
)
