Investigating the differences between the jurisprudential principles of Sahib Masalak (S) and Sahib Jawahir in criminal matters (Hudud, Qisas and Diyat)

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 PhD Student, Department of Jurisprudence and Fundamentals of Islamic Law, Ramhormoz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ramhormoz, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Jurisprudence and Fundamentals of Islamic Law, Ramhormoz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ramhormoz, Iran

3 Professor, Department of Jurisprudence and Fundamentals of Islamic Law, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

10.30510/psi.2022.320569.2830

Abstract

Islamic law, with a correct understanding of human needs and interests, has provided a legitimate basis for their satisfaction, because unrestrained in meeting human needs will ultimately lead to the violation of the rights of other citizens. In order for a "criminal policy" to be simultaneous, efficient, fair and humane, it is necessary to use different types and amounts of punishments in predicting and enforcing the guarantee of criminal executions, in accordance with the variety of crimes, the variety of criminals and the different conditions of crime. . The purpose of the present article is to comparatively study the jurisprudential and ijtihad opinions and inferences of two prominent jurists and the effect of Shiite transition, namely: Sheikh Zainuddin Moghlab to Sahib Masalak (RA) who died in 966 AH and Sheikh Mohammad Hassan Najafi (Sahib Jawaher) who died in 1266 AH. Research question: How to resolve the jurisprudential differences between Sahib Masalak (S) and Sahib Jawahir (RA) in the field of rulings on punishments? The jurisprudential and ijtihad dispute has been addressed by mentioning the arguments and ijtihad principles of each.

Keywords

Political Sociology of Iran
Volume 5, Issue 12
February 2023
Pages 2912-2928

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics