عنوان مقاله [English]
One of the vital issues in the realm of Islam criminal fiqh which Islamic jurists have paid attention to is the affirmation or disavowal (denial) of the liability for the payment of diyya (Arabic: دیة; blood money that has to be paid for homicide and bodily injury when there is no retaliation) to the defendant being mahqun al-dam (Arabic: محقون الدم literally, “his blood is protected”) who is murdered because of the execution of non-capital sentencing. There are four opinions about this: the well-known jurists believe that it cannot be imagined any liability for killing (murder) in all punishments (qiṣāṣ, Arabic: قِصَاص retributions, ḥadd, Arabic: حد fixed punishment and ta'zir, Arabic: تعزیر non-fixed punishment) and the blood of the murderee is spilt with impunity but some others with the separation between hadd because of violating the right of Allah and violating the right of human beings think that being murdered because of the latter type (hadd because of violating the right of human beings) creates liability and some others believe in the liability due to death as the matter of tazir. Finally, Khansari has serious doubt about the well-known opinion although this matter does not lead a legal ruling (Arabic: فتوا fatwā) to be issued in opposition to it. The present note which has been arranged with the library method and with a critical-analytic approach analyzes the mentioned opinions and their evidence and at last with accepting the opinion of the validity of diyya to all penalties it is proved based on some evidence.