نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 مدرس مرکز تخصصی حقوق و قضای اسلامی، تهران، ایران
2 دانشیار حقوق کیفری و جرمشناسی، پردیس فارابی دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Inconsistency occurs sometimes between two indications, sometimes between two principles, and still sometimes other between an indication and a principle. In discussions about juridical principles, we have repeatedly heard that if there is some inconsistency between “indication” and “practical principle”, this is a primary inconsistency; since when there is “indication”, we have nothing to do with the principle. The reason is that the subject because of which practical principle is executed is “doubt” and when there is some “indication”, there is no room for doubt and so no need to referring to practical principles. Concerning relation between the rule Dra’ and Presumption of Continuity (Istishab), however, it should be noted that jurists are of no fixed opinion in this regard. There are three opinions concerning this matter: 1- the rule of Dra’ is prior to Presumption of Continuity; 2- Presumption of Continuity is prior to the rule of Dra’; 3- doubt about this matter. After hard studies and research, it should be said: the rule of Dra’ is enforced only concerning Hudud and Ta’zirat (Islamic Punishments) and that only at a reasonable level. In this case, it is prior to Presumption of Continuity. Beyond this reasonable level and concerning Qisas (retaliation) and Diyat (blood-moneys), however, Presumption of Continuity is prior to the rule of Dra’.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)
