Juridical and Legal Investigation of Famine Year in Limit Theft

Transcription

1 Juridical and Legal Investigation of Famine Year in Limit Theft Hossein Davarzani *1, Pardis Shareyati and Sedigheh Hatami Assistance Professor of Jurisprudence and Principles of Islamic Law, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran M.Sc. graduated of Jurisprudence and Principles of Islamic Law, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran M.Sc. graduated of Jurisprudence and Principles of Islamic Law, University of Alzahra, Tehran, Iran Abstract Theft becomes measure theft when the determined conditions in jurisprudence and law of which punishment is to perform divine limit that means hand amputation. Theft occurrence in the famine year is a barrier to perform the limit. It is obvious and there is no conflict is that, if theft has all the limit conditions but it has been occurred when famine has dominated the people, the limit punishment will not be performed. The subject discussed in this study is that, what famine is and when a year is considered as famine, and if the meaning of famine is the 365 days or not. It has been attempted in this article to respond this question as much as possible and to investigate the comments of jurists and lawyers. Keywords: Limit theft, Famine Introduction Theft is a crime that have specific traits. We know that, crimes are the people right or God s right for which the divine limit is performed. But, theft is a dual crime since, although its God s right is dominant, it also include the people right. Hence, jurists and layers believe that, as long as the stolen property has not been claimed, the owner can forgive him but, after the claim, the owner cannot ignore his property and prevent limit performance. In jurisprudence and consequently in law, some conditions have been predicted that, if all of them are proved, the person who has stolen the properties of the others, will be punished by limit. But, if even one of the mentioned conditions is inexistent, his crime has another name and is not subject to limit. Jurists consider theft only as an action which is subject to limit; otherwise, the action not only is not subject to the limit but also, it will have another name. It seems that, these words have been taken from Quran in which hand amputation of the stealer has been mentioned. Given the generality of this provision, we should refer to the narrations and traditions of Imams to find the real meaning of theft. The narrations state theft conditions. For instance, Imam Sadeq (AS) narrated from his father that, the stealer s hand must not be amputated in famine year for stealing food and etc. (Qomi et al.). Therefore, we find that, one of hand amputation conditions is that, the theft is not occurred in a fame year.

2 1- Definition of limit theft in jurisprudence and law First: Limit theft in jurisprudence 1- Imamiah jurisprudence: jurists define it based on their own method and by stating the traits of a crime. Anyways it can be concluded that, the jurists divide theft conditions into two categories: A) The conditions specific for the theft including: 1. Wisdom, 2.Discretion, 3. Maturity, 4.Urgency, 5.Uncertainty height 6. Participation height, 6. The theft must not be the owner s father. B) Conditions of the stolen property including: 1. Limit of which the amount is a quarter of a dinar, 2. The property must be kept in a custom place, 3. The property must be hidden, it means that, theft must be occurred secretly. In addition to the considered conditions, there are also some other case which are not paced in these categories. In fact, they are belonged to the act of theft such as the lack of theft occurrence in famine year. 2- Sunni jurists Conditions of limit implementation from Sunni jurists view include: 1. Maturity, 2. Wisdom, 3. The person must not be owner of the properties, 5. The owner must not be enemy of the theft, 6. The stolen properties must reach adequate amount, 7. The object must have property conditions, 8. The object must be a thing of which theft has meaning, 9. The theft must be occurred from a custom place. Second: limit theft in law Limit theft in Islamic Penal Code includes two types: A) The theft that causes simple limit which is the instance of article 198 of IPC and is a theft in which robbery is conducted without violation and domination. The legislative defines theft at article 197 of IPC as: secretly snatching the property of others. This definition is not comprehensive and includes the other types of snatch. 2- Limit theft along with resonant qualities Here, theft is along with domination and violation. The instance of this theft is to cut way. The punishment of this kind of theft is the enemy punishment due to its ominous and bad effect on the security of the society. 2- Literally meaning of famine or general starvation In this section, the meaning of famine and starvation will be explained. A) Starvation: is derived from hunger. Ibn Manzour also mentions in Lisan Al-Arab: starvation year (Ibn Manzour, Mhammad Bin Mokarram). Dehkhoda also has defined starvation as hunger in his dictionary (Dehkhoda). B) Famine Dehkhoda has defied famine as rarity in his dictionary and writes: famine is rarity of something. Famine includes a very dry year and without product (Dehkhoda).

3 And finally, in Al-Monjad dictionary, famine has been defined as a very dry year. 3- Concept of famine in jurisprudence and law Limit is a religious establishment. Therefore, the crimes involved to limit have taken their punishment conditions from the lawgiver. Therefore, to understand the accurate comment of lawgiver, we must refer to the references that have explained his intention, and are confirmed by the holy religion. First) Famine in verses and hadiths It was mentioned that, Quran has not mentioned directly to theft; so, the narrations and hadiths can help us to reach the fact. Accordingly, we have to refer to the hadiths to understand accurately Quran and the commands of holy lawgiver. Here we mention to some hadiths: A) Imam Ali (AS) has mentioned that: the theft s hand is not amputated in famine and starvation period. B) Imam Sadeq (AS) quote a hadith from his father: the theft s hand is not amputated for stealing food and other things in famine year. C) I n hadith from Abi Abd Allah has been mentioned that, the theft s hand is not amputated for stealing food and other things in famine year. D) Ali Bin Ebrahim quote from Imam Sadeq (AS) that, the theft s hand is not amputated in famine year. E) Ali Bin Ebrahim quote from Imam Sadeq (AS) that, the theft s hand is not amputated in famine year. This hadith is right without even elimination of any narrator and most of his hadiths are right. In the mentioned hadith, Imam considers robbery in a year that is not famine as one of the conditions to prove limit theft. In another hadith, Sheikh Koleini quote from Sahl Ibn Ziad that, Imam Sadeq never amputated the theft s hand in famine days. Mohammad bin Ali bin Hossein quote from Imam Sadeq (AS) that, the theft s hand is not amputated for stealing foods in famine year. This hadith also is valid due to its credible narrator just as the hadith above. In this hadith also, no amputation of the theft s hand has been mentioned. The only difference of this hadith to the others is the last part of that by which Imam only has considered food robbery for no amputation of hand and nothing else. Second: Famine in the jurists view A) Imamiah jurists There is no conflict among the jurists about no hand amputation in famine year and they believe that, the theft s hand will not be amputated in famine year; therefore their beliefs are same in this case. Also it seems that, the concept of famine is not conflicted among the jurists since, they have not stated the traits of famine and this indicates that, the concept of famine is clear for them. Sheikh Tousi says in Khelaf that, the narrators have mentioned that, if a theft steals when starvation, his hand will not be amputated. But, considering the literal meaning of famine it can be found that, famine is occurred when starvation becomes dominant or food restriction has been occurred due to drought or the lack of rainfall; so, the people are under stress or hardship. For instance, Sayed Qomi in his book entitled Hajj mentions that, giving food to someone who is at risk

4 of death by starvation, is obligatory. Considering this sentence it seems that, in the view of jurists, starvation means the time at which the people are under stress due to the lack of food. Second: Sunni jurists Ahmed bin Hanbal says: theft in famine year is not punished by limit; if a person steals food as much as his need, it is compulsion which causes to fall the limit (Ibn Qaddamah). Shafei jurists also believe that, if food is available in the market, and the theft is able to buy, theft is required to be punished by limit; however the food is more expensive than common measure. It can be found from their comments and words of Sunni jurists that, they consider famine year when the lack of food causes compulsion by which the person has no way to provide food even with high price. Third: famine in law In unit 12, article 198 of Islamic Penal Code, it has been mentioned that, theft must not be occurred in famine year. The lawgiver has not given any definition of famine and therefore, its meaning should be searched in the comments of jurists and juridical references as other vague cases and considering that, limit theft is a religious establishment. The lawyers also have cited the words and comments of jurists in explanation of limit theft crime, and follow their beliefs. They have considered the meaning of famine as the lack of general aliment; moreover, the law has given the diagnosis of famine year to the custom, and famine duration follows the custom. Dr. Golduzian says: it is obvious that, famine means the lack of general aliments in the crime commitment year (Golduzian). But, another point is about term year. It is clear that, there is no trait in term year. Of course it was better that, n current situations, the lawyer used famine period or duration instead of famine year. Therefore, the comments of lawyers and law are same to the jurists about limit theft and its conditions; since, limit theft has been taken from jurisprudence, and limits are divine and juridical establishment, and the lawyers cannot comment independently of jurisprudence. 4. Concept of general and year Another subject that is required to be mentioned is the concept of general which have been mentioned several times in hadiths and jurists words. It should be found if they mean the common time or 365 days, or the duration in which famine is dominant. It seems that, there is no trait is word year, and the term general probably has been used by the jurists since, the people were faced with famine during the year if there was no product due to drought. Considering that, the purpose is to eliminate hardship and pressure therefore it can be said that, whenever food and general aliments are in famine, the limit performance is stopped. In many hadiths also, the term days has been used and not general as Asem Bin Hamid quotes from Imam Sadeq (AS) that, he mentions to no hand amputation of theft by Imam Ali (AS) in famine days and not in general or famine year. In this hadith, Sheikh Koleini quotes from Sahl Bin Ziad that, Imam Sadeq said that, Imam Ali (AS) did not amputated the thefts hand in famine days (Koleini).

5 Ayatollah Makarem also has mentioned that, if economic situation becomes bad only in a short time, for instance one month, the criterion is one month in which hand imputation is not permitted (Makarem Shirazi). 5. Instances of famine While investigating the famine, a question is generated that, what must be stolen to eliminate limit? Or if a person is not punished while stealing anything, or it is only for food. Another question is that, if the limit elimination is only for food, what kind of food is included? First: food scarcity It is obvious that, famine is generated by food scarcity. This scarcity can have several causes such as drought, war and etc. So, undoubtedly if food becomes scarce and even rare so that, it is not available for the people, and they steal food to save themselves and their family from this famine and hunger, they are not punished. Second: Expensive food It seems that, if the costs are as much the rich men even are not able to buy food, it means famine too; since, the philosophy of no hand amputation n famine year is due to the pressure resulted from hunger that forces a person to steal. Therefore, if a person cannot provide food due to its expense, and steals something, the limit must not be performed for him/her since, he/she has stolen under pressure. But, if the costs are as much the person be able to buy it, his hand will be amputated. In Tousi s view, if the theft is occurred in famine year while food is available even with high price, the limit is performed for him/her. Ayatollah Makarem believes that, for the poor people, too high cost has no difference to rarity (Makarem Shirazi); therefore, he also has not considered absolutely the high cost as an instance of famine unless the person is not able to buy food. Being expensive here includes two categories: A) The one that makes people under pressure but, they are still able to provide food; or the person is able to provide food due to his/her financial situation. Here, if the person measures to steal, he is punishable. B) Being expensive that has direct effect on the person due to inability for the life conditions. Here, being expensive and high price of the goods prevents the limit performance, and has no difference to famine. Shafei also mentions that, if food is available and the person can provide food even by high price, theft is punishable but, if he/she is not able to provide food, theft is not punishable (Ansari et al.). Therefore, if food becomes much expensive for short or long time so that, most of people lose shopping ability, this time is also an instance of famine year. Third: The effect of famine on non-victuals Famine basically is a specific period; so, it must dominate most of people. It means that, the pressure resulted from starvation must put pressure on the people of an area. Such case would not be occurred for non-victuals since, the lack of non-victuals put pressure on a specific group of the people. For instance, if some goods such as furniture and household equipment become rare, only the people who earn money through selling them, will be under pressure, and they may measure to steal. It sees that, this case can be evaluated as emergency and not famine. Since, if we look at this case deeply,

6 rarity or expensive non-victuals will not put pressure on most of people and will not cause their starvation, and only will change the status of some people who earn money through these materials or need them; for example, a specific drug becomes rare or expensive and a person needs it and measures to steal it to meet his/her need. They are in the minority and do not include majority of the society, and it is found from the jurists words that, famine year is a period which involves the people; not any specific persons or segment of the society. So, the rarity period of these materials cannot be considered as famine. Another question is that, stealing non-victual in famine year is punishable by limit or not? The answer of this question will be investigated in the next topics. Forth: victual or non-victual stolen materials in famine It was mentioned that, the lack of non-victual does not lead to name its period and duration as famine period. But the question is that, stealing non-victual in famine year is punishable by limit or not? Here we review the comments of jurists and lawyers. First: Comments of Imamiah and Sunni jurists There are two groups of comments among the jurists. Some of them clearly consider stealing victuals to drop limit and mention to the hadiths to prove their claim. On the other hand, another group of the scholars have considered stealing non-victuals involved to this sentence and the person may turn this property into food. Of course no performance of limit in non-victuals is due to uncertainty. As it was mentioned, we are faced with two groups when investigation of hadiths: 1. The hadiths that are absolute and consider theft in famine year to prevent limit performance. As Asem Bin Hamid says: the theft s hand will not be amputated in famine year. 2. The hadiths that make the sentence of no amputation tied to food and victuals. As Ziad Al- Qandi who quote from Abi Abd Allah that, the theft s hand is not amputated due to victuals such as flour, meat and so on. This hadith was discussed in the past sections. But, the first group of the jurists such as Shahid Thani believe that, stealing food prevents limit performance. They state that, victual here means absolutely food. Imam Baqer (AS) also says that, the theft s hand is not amputated in drought year which results in famine. Ayatollah Broujerdi says after this statement that, Imam Baqer means victuals and nothing else (Boroujerdi). They also believe by citing the hadiths that, theft in famine year prevents limit if the stolen object is victual and nothing else. Hassan Tabresi states theft contributors and says that, only food theft is exempted to hand amputation and nothing else. Sheikh Tousi also consider theft exemptible only in famine year and nothing else (Tousi). Mohaqeq Ardebili does not consider stealing nonvictual to prevent limit therefore, his meaning about theft in famine year is only stealing victuals and nothing else. Kashef Al-Qata also believes that, only the theft of victuals such as meat and flour in famine year is not punishable and nothing else.

7 In Fiqh Al-Imam Al-Sadeq, stealing victuals has been considered, and famine has been mentioned as the cause of no limit performance. Mar ashi Najafi also has not considered food theft punishable and has mentioned famine year as the cause of this subject. This comment has been confirmed by Ayatollah Khoei too. He mentions a hadith from Imam Sadeq (AS) as the cause of this speech (Khoei Sayyed Abolqasem). In Mohazzab Al-Ahkam it has been mentioned that, amputation is not the theft punishment in famine year when the stolen object is victual. Ayatolah Golpaygani justifies the reason of this content that, victuals theft is the only cause of no limit performance. He also mentions some other news which have been apparently tied to victuals. Therefore, Ayatollah Golpaygani believes that, absolute narration must be tied and limit elimination must only be generalized to victuals (Golpaygani, Sayed Mohammadreza). In addition to the mentioned contents, Ayatollah Vahid Khorasani in Menhaj Al-Salehin considers food theft to prevent limit performance (Shahroudi). In the other side, there are the jurists who believe that, theft everything in famine year prevents limit performance and do not consider it only for victuals. Imam Khomeni (RA) believes no hand amputation of the theft if he/she has stolen victual in starvation year. But, the difference of Imam Khomeini to the jurists of the first group is that, he says: no hand amputation is likely to be considered for the poor person (Khomeini Sayed Rooh Allah). Therefore, in his view also, stealing non-victual prevents the limit performance in famine year. Saheb Javaher faults the other jurists that, consideration of absolute narrations on tied is the interpretation of Sheikh Saduq about the narrations and not Imam s words. This is prior when generalization of theft to all cases including victual and non-victual. Ayatollah Golpaygani responded him: we also accept that, it is Sheikh s interpretation but, Ziad Qandi frankly mentions that, theft of victuals prevents limit and nothing else. On the other hand, Sahen Javaher believes that, tying the theft to food and victuals causes that, stealing potential victuals such as flour is ignored since, the potential victuals are not considered as food while, jurists of the first group had considered potential and actual victuals as food (Najafi, Mohammad hasan). Among Sunni jurists also Imam Shafei considers companions narration as the only reason of this task that, food theft prevents limit performance (Tousi, Mohammad Bin Ali). Ahmad Hanbal says: no hand amputation is done in famine year since, when a person steals something, it is like emergency. It seems that, there is another cause about the second group jurists including: they believe that, the person who steal something, intends to eliminate famine whether steals victual or non-victual; and he ultimately converts the non-victual to victual in order to relieve hunger. In fact, the stealer steals the property to convert it to victual and food. Second: Law The condition of no theft in famine year is a condition of which base is jurisprudence and has been created by jurists; and the law only uses it. The only subject which can be considered by

8 investigating the law is that, which jurists comments have been accepted and followed by the law. The lawmaker has only mentioned to the term famine year in section 2, article 198 of IPC, and has not explained it. But after scanning the explanation of law presented by the lawyers it can be found that, the comment of second group is accepted by the law which means, stealing everything whether victual or non-victual cancels the limit performance. Dr. Golduzian believes that, even if no reason is found, the limit is not performed since, there is an uncertainty for us too. Therefore, theft in famine year cancels hand amputation whether we find a reason to prove this claim or not. Dr. Shambayati also says: considering the law that has not made the condition tied to food, and according to the jurists, this condition is not dedicated to food, and stealing any property will not cause to amputate the theft s hand in famine year (Shambayati). On the other hand, the law explanation is general and needs to be interpreted; so, according to the rules of criminal law, vague cases must be interpreted in favor of the defendant if there is any doubt. In this case also, the issue is interpreted in favor of the defendant that, stealing anything in famine year cancels the limit. Third: actual or potential food This question is proposed when we accept that, only stealing victuals in famine year causes to prevent limit performance; since, if absolute accept of theft in famine year, the theft s hand will not be amputated even if he/she steals non-victuals. So, there will not be the discussion of potential and actual food. But the jurists who consider stealing victuals to prevent the limit performance, also consider the potential victuals such as meat and flour effective on no hand amputation. In their view, stealing victuals prevents limit performance whether potential or actual. Their reason is from the hadiths in this context which were investigated. In Ziad Qandi Morsaleh it had been mentioned that, the theft s hand is not amputated in famine year for stealing victuals such as flour and meat and so on (Tousi, Aboujafar); while flour and meat are potential victuals. But about the second group of jurists and law that consider absolutely theft to stop hand amputation, such discussion will not be created. When they consider stealing of anything to cancel the limit, the potential victuals also are involved by this sentence. Conclusion According to the mentioned meanings of general famine it can be said that, general means a one-year period including 12 months. Famine also has been taken from starvation. Therefore it can be mentioned that, the combination of these words means starvation year. Also this term can be stated as famine year since, starvation is resulted from food rarity and scarcity. Famine also can be considered as drought, the lack of product and food scarcity and generally the lack of anything. Totally it can be said that: General famine means starvation and famine period resulted from drought and food scarcity. It can be concluded from the stated contents that:

9 1. The meaning of famine is when starvation dominates or the people are under pressured due to drought or the lack of rainfall and even expensive food. 2. The meaning of general or year is a short or long period in which famine is dominant, and not only the period including 12 months. 3. Famine is caused by scarcity or expensive food and not non-victuals since, rarity of the other materials only affects a specific number of the people and not all the society; so, it cannot be named famine period. Of course these victuals include both actual and potential victuals. 4. According to the hadiths and jurists comments, it can be concluded that, theft generally causes to cancel limit in famine. Therefore, if the person steals non-victual, his/her punishment is cancelled. He/she may steal the property to sell and convert it to food. References Quran Karim 1. Ibn Qadamah, Beirut, Dar Al-Kitab Al-Arabi, 1403 AH. 2. Ibn Manzur; Mohammad Bin Mokarram AH. Lisan Al-Arab. Edited by: Ahmad Fars Saheb Al-Javaeb: Beirut- Lebanon, Dar Al-Kekr le- Altabaah va Al-Nashr va Al-Tozi, 3 rd edition. 3. Al-Sarakhsi, Shams Al-Din AH. Al-Mabsut Cairo, Mohammad Afandi Sasi Al-Maqrebi Al-Tunsi. 4. Ardebili, Mohammad Ibrahim AH. Edited by Mojtaba Araqi, Hosein Yazdi Isfahani; Majma Al- Faedah va Alborhan fi Sharh Al-Ershad Al-Azhan, Islamic Publications Office affiliated to the scholastic community of Seminary, 1 st Edition, Qom. 5. Al-Shartuni Al-Khori; Saeed Eqrab Al- Mavared fi Fas h Al-Arabia va Al-Shavared; vol. 1, Dar Al-Osvah Le Al-Tabaah va Al-Nashr; 2 nd edition. 6. Al-Ameli, Zain Al-Din; Ali Bin Mohammad AH. Al-Rowzah Al-Bahiah fi Sharhe Lem ah Al- Dameshqiah, vol. 2, Ganj Al-Erfan, Qom. 7. Al-Moqaniah Mohammad Javad AH. Fiqh Al-Emam Al-Sadeq; vol. 6. Ansarian Institute, 2 nd edition, Qom. 8- Al-Nowi, Abouzakaria Yahya Al-Din Al- Menhaj Sharh fi Sahih Moslem Inb Al-Hojaj; Cairo, Al-Maktab Al-Thaqafi. 9. Ansari Ibn Yahya, Zakaria. Rowz Al-Taleb; vol Borujerdi, Sayed Hasan References of Shia Fiqh, Comprehensive Shia Hadiths, translated by Ahmad Esmaeil Tabar, Sayed Ahmadreza Hoseni, ehdi Hoseinian, vol. 30; Tehran, Green Culture. 11. A number of researchers supervised by Mahmoud Shahroudi AH. Edited by: Researchers of Institute of Islamic Jurisprudence encyclopedia, vol. 3. Al-Qadir Le Al-Taba ah va Al-Nashr va Al-Towzi, 1 st edition, Beirut. 12- Hor Ameli, Mhammad Bin Hasan AH. Tafsil Vasael Al-Shia ela Tahsil Masael Al-Shariah. Vol. 17, 18. Institute of Aal Ahl Al-Bait, 1 st edition, Qom. 13- Khomeini, Rouh Allah Tahrir Al-Vasilah, vol. 2, Institute of settings and publication of Imam Khomeini's Works. 2 nd edition, Tehran.

10 14. Khoei, Abu Al-Qasem AH. Al-Menhaj, vol. 1, 2. Institute of rehabilitation of Imam Khomeini's Works. 15. Dehkhoda, Mohammad Dehkhoda Dictionary, vo. 43, 38. Sirus Press, Tehran. 16. Sabzevari, Sayed Abd Al-A la Mohazab Al-Ahkam fi Bayan Al-Halal va Al-Haram, vol th edition. Qom. 17. Sayah, Ahmad. Arabic-Persian modern comprehensive dictionary, translated by: Al-Monjad, Islam Press, 6 th edition. 18. Shambayati, Hushang; Dedicated Criminal Law, vol. 2, 8 th edition, Cultural and Scientific Assembly, Bita. 19. Saduq, Mohammad Bin Ali AH. Manla Yahzar Al-Faqih, vol. 1, 5, 4, Saduq Press, Tehran, 1 st edition. 20. Tabatabaei, Sayed Hasan AH. Kitab Al- Haj, 1 st edition, Qom. 21. Tabresi, Fazl Bin Hasan AH. Al-Motalef I Al-Mokhtalef Bayn Aemmah Al-Self, vol. 2. Majma Al-Bohuth Al-Islamiah; Mashhad, 1 st edition. 22. Tusi, Mohammad Bin Hasan AH. Tahzib Al-Ahkam; vol. 1; Dar Al-Kitab Al-Islamiah, 4 th edition, Tehran Al-Khalaf, vol. 4, 5. Office affiliated to the scholastic community of Seminary, 1 st Edition, Qom, 1407 AH Al-Mabsut fi Fiqh Al-Islamiah, vol. 9; Maktab Al-Mortazaviah; 3 rd, 1387 AH Al-Nahayah fi Al-Mojarad Al-Fiqh va Al- Fatavi; Dar Al-Kitab Al-Arabi, 2 nd edition, Beirut, 1400 AH. 26. Tousi, Mohammad Bin Ali AH. Alvasilah ela Neyl Al-Fazilah; Library of Ayatollah Mar ashi Najafi; 1 st edition; Qom. 27. Amid, Hosein Amid Two-volume Persian dictionary, vol. 2, 26 th edition, Amirkabir. 28. Qayumi, Ahmad Bin Mohammad; Al-Mesbah Al- Monir fi Qarib Al-Sharh Al-Kabir; vol. 2; Manshurat Dar Al-Razi; 1 st edition, Qom. 29. Koleini, Mohammad Bin Yaqub Kafi Principles; vol. 3, 2, 1, 5; Gogasht, Tehran. 30. Golpaygani, Mohammadreza; Al-Dor Al- Manzoud fi Ahkam Al-Hodud; vol. 3. Dar Al-Quran Al-Karim; 2 nd edition, Qom. 31. Golduzian, Iraj AH. General criminal law indispensables, Tehran University, 9 th edition. 32. Makarem Shirazi, Naser AH. Ayatollah Makarem s new fatwas, vol. 3, Qom. Publications of Imam Ali Bin Abi Taleb (AS), 6 th edition. 33. Najafi, Mohammad Hasan; Javaher Al-Kalam fi Sharhe Sharaye Al-Islam, vol. 36, 41; Dar Ehya Al- Tarath Al-Arabi; 7 th edition, Beirut.