نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دکتری فقه و مبانی حقوق اسلامی، دانشکده الهیات و علوم اسلامی، دانشگاه تبریز، ایران
2 استادیار فقه و مبانی حقوق اسلامی، دانشکده الهیات و علوم اسلامی، دانشگاه تبریز، ایران
3 دانشیار فقه و مبانی حقوق اسلامی، دانشکده الهیات و علوم اسلامی، دانشگاه تبریز، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
The issue of duress in murder is one of the complex and controversial topics in Islamic jurisprudence and the five schools of thought, holding significant importance in determining criminal responsibility. This article aims to examine the impact of duress on the liability of the coerced person (mukrah) and the coercer (mukri) in murder and to analyze the points of divergence among Shiite and Sunni jurists. The research method is a comparative and descriptive analysis of the opinions of Shiite and Sunni jurists (Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki, and Hanbali) in classical and contemporary jurisprudential sources. The findings indicate that in Shiite jurisprudence, the prevailing view does not consider duress as a factor absolving the direct perpetrator of liability. However, a non-dominant view, under conditions of severe duress, reduces the liability of the coerced person and attributes the resulting murder primarily to the coercer. In Sunni jurisprudence, most jurists hold both parties liable. Nevertheless, in cases of complete duress or legal ambiguity (shubha), some consider the direct perpetrator as a mere tool in the hands of the coercer, thereby negating retribution (qisas) against the former. The practical conclusion of the article suggests that the absolute transfer of liability to either the coerced person or the coercer is not entirely correct. Therefore, the penal codes of Islamic countries should clearly and explicitly stipulate the liability of both the direct perpetrator and the coercer, taking into account the complexities and varying circumstances of duress in murder.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)