چکیده:
The presentation of various theories in determining the scope of punitive rules—such as the Rule of Dar'—due to the lack of an objective criterion in comparison with other principles and rules related to doubt, has caused ambiguity and conflicting opinions. This highlights the necessity for comparative research accompanied by explaining the similarities and differences between it and various types of doubt in Imami jurisprudence, Iranian law, and English law. On this basis, this article attempts to explain the different theories proposed regarding the realization of the criterion of doubt in the Rule of Dar' and critically examine the documentation of each. While logically justifying a valid theory and identifying an independent and truly punitive subject—not merely a supporter of other principles and rules—it examines the evidentiary and proof dimensions of realizing doubt to obtain an objective criterion for its identification within this rule. By comparing this criterion with types of doubt in the legal, material, and mental elements of crimes in Iranian law, along with referring to the approach of some rulings of the Supreme Court of Iran, it provides the ground for a comparative study of the theoretical aspects of how the influence of the doubt of the Rule of Dar' in the legislation of Imami jurisprudence compares to how various types of error influence English law.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Through comparing this criterion with types of doubt in the legal, material, and psychological elements of crimes in Iranian law, along with referring to the attitude of some rulings of the Supreme Court towards it, it provides the ground for a comparative study of the theoretical aspects of the impact of the doubt criterion of the Rule of Dar' in the legislation of Imami jurisprudence with the way various types of error impact English law.
This view is proposed by numerous jurists among the great Imami scholars, and since the discussion of doubt in jurisprudential books is often raised in the chapter of crime, on this basis, the author of Jawahir, while explaining the types of intercourse due to doubt, says: "The first type of intercourse is that while in reality the actor does not deserve intercourse, but either due to ignorance of the subject or due to ignorance of the ruling in a way that constitutes an excuse, they have certainty of deserving intercourse; and the second type of intercourse is that while the actor does not deserve intercourse and does not have certainty that they deserve intercourse, but—the conditions are such that—marriage is legally permissible despite that" (Najafi, n.
(
, 
, 
)
