Abstract
Qasāma is one of the proofs for homicide, which will be reliable in case of the existence of lawth (strong suspicion). There are two major views on how it is implemented. In sum, the first view deems as necessary swearing fifty oaths by fifty people; however the second view deems as sufficient swearing of fifty oaths by the claimant for proving the crime. The second view is a generally accepted fatwā and the first one is a rare fatwā theme. According to article 248 of the Islamic penal code passed in 1370 sh/1991, the generally accepted view dominated; however, in 1380-81 sh/2001-2002 upon the amelioration of the Islamic penal code, this rule was annulled by the fatwa of the Supreme Leader, and for proving homicide, the legislator deemed as necessary the swearing oaths by fifty people without repeating the oath. In the penal code passed in 1390 sh/2011, this same basis dominates. It is attempted in this article to examine the legal and judicial basis of article 377 of the ameliorated law. The writer believes that, with respect to some proofs existing in the evidences, even if the second view has strong foundations, qasāma is not a merely devotional institution; rather, the legislator has intended it in terms of intermediation and, if necessary, he can change its quality.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.