عنوان مقاله [English]
In Islamic jurisprudential writings, the matter of the nasal fracture has associated with its defect in an ambiguous form. Also, there is disagreement about the amount of its diyya (Arabic: دیة; blood money that has to be paid for homicide and bodily injury when there is no retaliation); some Islamic jurists believe the establishment (Arabic: ثبوت thubut) of arsh (Arabic: ارش; the compensation specified to be paid by the offender to the victim or his heirs) but the well-known jurists believe that in the case of healing (recovery) one tenth of full diyya is paid and in the occasion of nonunion (nonhealing) full diyya is paid. The latter attitude has been expressed ambiguously and unclearly in Article 593 of Islamic penal code (enacted 1392). The issuance of the several advisory opinions and the Uniform judicial precedent no. 761 in Date 02/08/1396 is improved this ambiguity. This paper shows that the intertwinement of the nasal defect and its fracture by Islamic jurists and legislature is the cause of these multiple challenges and logically there is no reason for it. It is necessary to be considered these two issues independently. Accordingly, with relying on the jurisprudential bases for removing ambiguities from diyya of nasal bone fractures the authors have chosen this opinion that such damage is considered an instance of hāshimah (if the bone itself has been fractured without dislocating) and consequently without differentia between the case of healing (recovery) and non-healing (nonunion), one tenth of the full diyya is paid.