بررسی تطبیقی پرداخت فاضل دیه در قصاص مرد در برابر زن از دیدگاه تفاسیر برکزیده شیعه و اهل سنت (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
مشروط بودن یا نبودنِ جواز قصاص مرد در برابر زن به پرداخت فاضل دیه یکی از مباحث اختلافی در فقه فریقین است که به تفاسیر نیز راه یافته است. این مطالعه درصدد بررسی این موضوع از نگاه دو تفسیر شیعه کنز العرفان فی فقه القرآن و زبده البیان فی احکام القرآن در مقایسه با دو تفسیر اهل سنتِ احکام القرآن و الجامع لأحکام القرآن است. نکته مشترک تفاسیر پیش گفته پذیرش اصل جواز قصاص مرد در برابر زن است. مشروط بودن جواز قصاص پیش گفته به پرداخت فاضل دیه در دو تفسیر شیعه و مشروط نبودن آن در دو تفسیر اهل سنت از نکات اختلافی این دو دسته تفسیر است. دو مفسر اهل سنت به ویژه نویسنده تفسیر احکام القرآن بر دلالت عموم آیات قصاص پافشاری دارند، درحالی که دو مفسر شیعه بر عدم دلالت آیات بر احکام پیش گفته اصرار می ورزند. نبودن عموم و اطلاق در آیات قصاص دلیل معتبر و مهم دو مفسر شیعه بر نفی استدلال پیش گفته است. نظریه مشروطیت قصاص پیش گفته به پرداخت فاضل دیه از پشتیبانی روایات معتبر و مرجحات روایی نیز برخوردار است.A Comparative Study of the Additional Payment of Blood Money in the Retribution of a Man Versus a Woman from the Perspective of Selected Shiite and Sunni Exegeses
The condition or lack thereof regarding the permissibility of retribution or equal punishment (qiṣāṣ) of a man versus a woman for the additional payment of blood money (fāzil al-dīyah) is one of the contentious topics in the jurisprudence of both Sunni and Shiite schools, which has also found its way into Quranic exegesis. This study aims to examine this issue from the perspective of two Shiite exegeses, Kanz al-ʿIrfān fī Fiqh al-Qurʾān and Zubdat al-Bayān fī Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, in comparison with two Sunni exegeses, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān and al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān. A shared point among these exegeses is the acceptance of the principle of allowing the retribution of a man versus a woman. The condition of permissibility of the aforementioned retribution being tied to the additional payment of blood money in the Shiite interpretation, and its being unconditional in the Sunni interpretation, is one of the points of disagreement between these two schools of exegesis. The two Sunni exegetes, particularly the author of Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, emphasize the general application of the verses on qiṣāṣ, whereas the Shiite exegetes insist that these verses do not indicate such rulings. The lack of generality and absoluteness in the verses of retribution is a valid and important argument by the Shiite exegetes against the aforementioned Sunni interpretation. Moreover, the theory of conditional retribution, which necessitates the payment of the additional blood money, is supported by authentic narrations and narrative preferences.
Keywords: addition of blood money, the retribution of a man versus a woman, retribution in Islam
Introduction
One of the contentious issues between Shiites and Sunnis is the conditionality of requiring the additional payment of blood money (fāḍil al-diyah) for the retribution (qiṣāṣ) of a man versus a woman. Shiite jurists maintain the conditionality of the return of this payment in such cases, arguing that it can be substantiated by the four well-known sources of Islamic jurisprudence (Quran, Sunnah, consensus, and reason). In contrast, Sunni jurists, including those from all four major Sunni schools of jurisprudence, believe in the non-condition of returning the additional blood money in the retribution of a man. The aforementioned jurisprudential disagreement between the two sects has had a wide-ranging reflection in their jurisprudential exegeses. Among the numerous jurisprudential interpretations of the two sects, in the present work, the aforementioned topic will be examined comparatively in four of their jurisprudential commentaries. These are the following:
Kanz al-ʿIrfān fī Fiqh al-Qurʾān by Fadil Miqdad
Zubdat al-Bayān fī Aḥkām al-Qurʾān by Muqaddas Ardabili
Aḥkām al-Qur’ān by al-Jassas
Al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān by al-Qurtubi
Qutb al-Rawandi and Fadil Miqdad, as Shiite jurisprudential exegetes, seek to establish the conditionality of requiring the excess payment of retribution for the retribution of a man versus a woman, based on the four jurisprudential proofs (Quran, Sunnah, consensus, and reason). On the other hand, al-Jassas (a Hanafi) and al-Qurtubi (a Maliki), in their respective commentaries, align with the consensus view of Sunni jurisprudence, arguing for the non-conditionality of such payment based on the four proofs, especially the Quran.
Similarities and Differences between the Two Categories of Exegesis on the Discussed Topic
From the examination of the issue of the additional payment of blood money in the retribution of a man versus a woman in the two Shiite interpretations—Kanz al-ʿIrfān fī Fiqh al-Qurʾān and Zubdat al-Bayān fī Aḥkām al-Qurʾān—compared to the two Sunni interpretations—Aḥkām al-Qurʾān and al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān—the following results can be concluded:
The only similarity between both groups of exegeses is the consensus on the permissibility of the principle of retribution of a man versus a woman.
One of the differences between the commentators concerns the Quranic evidence for the additional payment of blood money in the retribution of a man versus a woman. The two Shiite exegetes believe that the retribution verses only refer to the general obligation of retribution and the maintenance of justice and equality in it, not to the explanation of specific rulings and details of retribution. Therefore, expecting the Quran to provide detailed rulings is an unreasonable expectation. However, the two Sunni exegetes, especially Jassas, insist that the absolute permissibility of retribution of a man versus a woman can be proven from the generality and absoluteness of the verses. A review of the verses of retribution reveals that the generality and absoluteness of the verses do not pertain to the conditions and specific details of retribution, meaning that the inference of the absolute permissibility of retribution of a man versus a woman from the generality of these verses is incorrect.
The second difference between these two categories of exegesis concerns the argument for the ruling on the additional payment of blood money (fāḍil al-diyah) in the retribution of a man versus a woman. The two Shiite commentators believe that the aforementioned ruling cannot be proven from the retribution verses, neither in the negative nor in the affirmative, because the retribution verses are not meant to elaborate on the detailed rulings of retribution, including the condition of additionally paying the blood money in the retribution. However, the two Sunni exegetes believe that the generality and absoluteness of the retribution verses, as well as the absence of any mention of blood money alongside retribution in the case of intentional murder in the verses, are evidence for negating the payment of additional blood money in retribution. However, their argument is flawed because the generality and absoluteness of the verses do not pertain to the detailed rulings of retribution. Consequently, the absence of any mention of blood money in the verses of retribution cannot serve as evidence for negating the combination of retribution and blood money, especially given that authentic and even mutāwatir (a narration that has been transmitted by a large number of people through multiple, independent chains of transmission) narrations indicate the permissibility of combining retribution and blood money in the retribution of a man versus a woman.
The final difference between the two groups of commentators on the discussed topic is that the two Shiite exegetes have presented the exegetical and jurisprudential discussions separately, and their exegeses do not impose juristic theories on the verses. In contrast, the two Sunni commentators have incorporated unnecessary jurisprudential discussions into their interpretation of the verses.
Conclusion
All three arguments for the Sunni perspective on the retribution of a man versus a woman (the generality of the retribution verses, narrations, and the rule prohibiting the combination of retribution and blood money) have multiple weaknesses because, on one hand, the retribution verses do not aim to explain the details of retribution, such as the additional condition of blood money, so the absence of such a condition in the verses cannot serve as proof for its non-existence. On the other hand, even if one were to accept that the retribution verses are meant to elaborate on details, authentic narrations from both Shiite and Sunni sources specify exceptions to the generality of these verses. The Shiite narrations also have numerous advantages over the Sunni ones, including their lack of contradiction, reliable chains of transmission, and mutāwatir (widely transmitted) status. The rule prohibiting the combination of retribution and blood money is unacceptable due to the lack of valid evidence supporting it.
تبلیغات
