کاوشی نو در مقدار دیه زوال منافع؛ نقدی بر رویکرد قانون مجازات اسلامی

‌ ∴ Introduction ∴ ‌
Diya (Blood Money) is a fundamental concept in Islamic jurisprudence, serving as a prescribed monetary compensation for unintentional harm inflicted upon an individual's life, body, or specific benefits. In instances where intentional harm occurs but retribution (Qisas) is not applicable, Diya functions as an alternative punitive measure. The amounts designated for Diya are explicitly defined within Islamic law, ensuring a standardized approach to compensation for specific harms.
     In contrast, Arsh (in the meaning of compensation) pertains to cases where the specific amount of compensation is not predetermined by Islamic law. Here, the judiciary evaluates the nature and severity of the harm, its impact on the victim's health, and the extent of the damage. The court considers the established Diya amounts and consults expert opinions to determine a fair compensation. While Arsh shares similarities with Diya in its compensatory purpose, it differs in the lack of precise quantification within Islamic rulings.
     The loss or impairment of organ benefits and senses is a common consequence of injuries, making the determination of appropriate Diya or Arsh amounts a critical issue in Islamic jurisprudence. Numerous legal texts address physical injuries to external organs, detailing cases of cutting, breaking, and dislocating, among others. However, specific guidance on the loss of certain bodily benefits is limited, often confined to key senses like vision, hearing, voice, and intellect. This paucity of explicit narrations for many other bodily benefits raises important legal questions.
     The central issue is: What is the ruling for harms that cause the loss of benefits not explicitly mentioned in Islamic narrations? Can a systematic rule be deduced from existing specific or general texts to determine the Diya for these unmentioned benefits, or should these cases default to Arsh? This question holds significant practical importance, especially for judicial bodies tasked with determining compensation in a modern context.
     Although some early and contemporary Islamic jurists have briefly touched upon this issue, their discussions are typically succinct and reference a singular principle without extensive analysis. Similarly, Iran's Islamic Penal Code of 2013 specifies Diya for cases mentioned in narrations but defaults to Arsh for others (Article 708). There is a noticeable gap in comprehensive research on establishing criteria for determining Diya amounts for the general loss of benefits.
‌ ∴ Research Question ∴ ‌
The primary research question guiding this study is:
     What is the appropriate legal ruling for harms resulting in the loss or impairment of bodily organ benefits and senses not explicitly mentioned in Islamic narrations and hadiths?
     Sub-questions include:
     Can a systematic rule be derived from existing specific or general Islamic legal texts to determine the Diya for these unmentioned benefits?
     Should these cases be governed under Arsh, similar to other unmentioned instances?
     How does Iran's Islamic Penal Code of 2013 address these cases, and what are the implications for judicial practice?
‌ ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ ‌
The hypothesis of this research is that a systematic and generalizable rule can be deduced from the compilation of specific and general Islamic legal texts to determine the Diya for the loss of bodily organ benefits and senses not explicitly mentioned in narrations.
‌ ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ ‌
By integrating doctrinal research with practical considerations, the study seeks to bridge the gap between traditional jurisprudence and contemporary legal needs. The proposed framework aspires to inform legal reform efforts in Iran and other jurisdictions applying Islamic law, ultimately contributing to a more just and equitable legal system.
‌ ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ ‌
The research uncovers significant gaps in both Islamic jurisprudence and contemporary legal frameworks regarding the determination of Diya for the loss or impairment of bodily organ benefits and senses not explicitly mentioned in traditional texts.
     One of the key findings is that injuries resulting in the loss of primary benefits—those essential to an individual's life and livelihood—warrant the imposition of a full Diya. This aligns with the objectives of Sharia (Maqasid al-Sharia) in promoting justice and equitable compensation. For instance, the loss of critical senses like sight or hearing, which profoundly affect an individual's ability to function independently, traditionally mandates a full Diya. By extrapolating this principle, other essential benefits not explicitly mentioned can also be considered for full Diya.
     Conversely, the impairment or loss of benefits that have a lesser impact on daily living and do not significantly disrupt an individual's life should be compensated through Arsh. This distinction underscores the importance of assessing the severity and impact of the harm when determining compensation. The study critiques the general guideline in Article 708 of Iran's Islamic Penal Code of 2013, which mandates Arsh for all unspecified benefits lacking textual support in Islamic scripture and tradition. This blanket approach does not fully align with the nuanced principles found in Islamic jurisprudence.
     The research also highlights practical challenges faced by judicial bodies. The lack of explicit guidance for numerous bodily benefits leads to inconsistencies in compensation and potential injustices. By proposing a systematic rule derived from existing legal texts, the study aims to enhance the consistency and fairness of Diya determinations.
‌ ∴ Conclusion ∴ ‌
In conclusion, the study finds that paralysis or weakness lacks a singular definition in Islamic jurisprudence and may occur with or without the loss of bodily benefits, whether in whole or in part. The general application of Arsh for all unspecified benefits, as mandated by Article 708 of Iran's Islamic Penal Code of 2013, does not fully conform to the principles established in Islamic law. Arsh, being a compensation amount not explicitly prescribed, relies heavily on judicial discretion and may not adequately reflect the severity of certain harms.
     The research establishes that when an injury leads to the loss of a primary benefit critical to an individual's life and livelihood, the imposition of a full Diya is warranted. This is supported by general hadiths and Shi'a narrations concerning the loss of bodily benefits and senses. For benefits with a lesser impact on daily life, whose absence does not significantly disrupt an individual's functioning, Arsh remains the appropriate form of compensation.
     In cases where uncertainty arises regarding the importance of certain benefits and their categorization within the aforementioned groups, the study concludes that full Diya should not be applied. Instead, Arsh should be assigned to ensure fair and equitable compensation. This approach advocates for a more nuanced application of Islamic legal principles, ensuring that compensation accurately reflects the impact of the harm on the victim's life.