The ruling on the intentional crime of a blind person from the perspective of Imamiyyah jurisprudence

Articles in Press

Document Type : Original Article

Author

reza Mirzaeikalan

Level 3 student of Qom Seminary, graduate of the Higher Institute of Jurisprudence and Islamic Sciences

10.22067/jfiqh.2025.93149.1957

Abstract

In Imami jurisprudence, there is considerable disagreement regarding the ruling on intentional crimes committed by a blind person. Some jurists, such as Ibn Idris, Muhaqqiq-e-Hilli, and Shahid Thani, cite the Quranic generalities of retribution and believe that the ruling on intentional crimes is equal for blind and sighted people, and that retribution is permissible if the conditions are met. In contrast, jurists such as Sheikh Tusi, Shahid Awal, and Mohaqiq-e-Khu'i believe that a blind person's intentional crime is considered a mistake and that only the sane person is responsible for blood money; this view is based on two reliable narrations: the authentic narration of Abu Ubaydah, which states that "the intent of the blind is like a mistake" and the authentic narration of Halabi, in which Imam Sadiq (AS) considers murder by the blind to be a mistake and considers blood money obligatory on the sane person. In this study, after describing the evidence for both views, the chain of custody and the evidence of the narrations are analyzed, and the problems raised, including the weakness of the chain of custody, the issue of assigning Quranic generalities to a single news, and the lack of compliance with the general rules of diyat, are criticized and examined. The research findings show that, considering the authenticity of the chain of transmission and the significance of specific narrations, as well as considering the fundamental principles in the sum of generalities and narrations, the view that equates blind intent with error is more credible.

Keywords

Intentional crime

blind

retaliation

blood money

Subjects

• Jurisprudence and criminal law

---