ماهیت حقوقی دیه

دﯾﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮان ﯾﮏ ﻧﻬﺎد ﺣﻘﻮﻗﯽ ﻣﻮرد ﭘﺬﯾﺮش اﺳﻼم ﺑﻮده و از اﺣﮑﺎم اﻣﻀﺎﺋﯽ اﺳﻼم ﻣﯽ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ ﮐﻪ در دوران ﻗﺒﻞ از اﺳﻼم ﻧﯿﺰ وﺟﻮد داﺷﺘﻪ و ﺑﺎ ﻇﻬﻮر اﺳﻼم ﻣﻮرد ﭘﺬﯾﺮش و اﻣﻀﺎء ﻗﺮارﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ اﺳﺖ و دﻟﯿﻞ ﭘﺬﯾﺮش آن ﻗﺮآن ، ﺳﻨﺖ ﭘﯿﺎﻣﺒﺮ واﻫﻞ ﺑﯿﺖ ﻋﻠﻬﻢ اﻟﺴﻼم و اﺟﻤﺎع ﻓﻘﻬﺎء ﻣﯽ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ. ﻣﺎﻫﯿّﺖ دﯾﻪ از ﻣﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﺗﺄﺛﯿﺮﮔﺬار در ﺑﺤﺚ دﯾﺎت ﻣﯽ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ، ﭼﺮا ﮐﻪ ﭘﺬﯾﺮش ﻫﺮ ﻧﻮع ﻣﺎﻫﯿّﺖ ﺑﺮای دﯾﻪ آﺛﺎری را در ﭘﯽ دارد. ﭼﻨﺎﻧﭽﻪ ﻣﺎﻫﯿّﺖ دﯾﻪ را ﻣﺠﺎزات ﺑﺪاﻧﯿﻢ ﺑﺎﯾﺪ ﮔﻔﺖ ، ﻃﺒﻖ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ ﺑﺎب ﺿﻤﺎن و ﻣﺴﺆﻟﯿّﺖ ﻣﺪﻧﯽ ، ﻣﺠﻨﯽ ﻋﻠﯿﻪ ﻣﯽ ﺗﻮاﻧﺪ ﻋﻼوه ﺑﺮ دﯾﻪ درﯾﺎﻓﺘﯽ ، ﺑﺎ ﻃﺮح دادﺧﻮاﺳﺖ ، ﺟﺒﺮان ﺿﺮر وزﯾﺎن ﮐﻪ ﺑﺮ اﺛﺮ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻣﺠﺮم ﺑﻪ وی وارد ﺷﺪه اﺳﺖ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﻪ ﻧﻤﺎﯾﺪ و دادﮔﺎه ﻧﯿﺰ ﺑﺎ اﺣﺮاز راﺑﻄﻪ ﺳﺒﺒﯿّﺖ ﺑﯿﻦ ﺿﺮر وارده و ﻋﻤﻞ ﻣﺠﺮم ﺣﮑﻢ ﺑﻪ ﺟﺒﺮان دﻫﺪ ﻟﮑﻦ اﮔﺮ دﯾﻪ را دارای ﻣﺎﻫﯿّﺖ ﻣﺪﻧﯽ ) ﺟﺒﺮاﻧﯽ ( ﺑﺪاﻧﯿﻢ ﮐﻪ از ﻃﺮف ﺷﺎرع ﻣﻘﺪس ﺟﻬﺖ ﺟﺒﺮان ﺧﺴﺎرت زﯾﺎن دﯾﺪه ﺗﻌﯿﯿﻦ ﮔﺮدﯾﺪه اﺳﺖ ﺑﺪﻟﯿﻞ ﺗﻌﯿﯿﻦ ﻣﯿﺰان آن ﻧﻤﯽ ﺗﻮان ﭼﯿﺰی ﻋﻼوه ﺑﺮ دﯾﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮان ﺟﺒﺮان ﺧﺴﺎرت از ﻣﺮﺗﮑﺐ ﻋﻤﻞ ) ﻣﺠﺮم ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﻪ ﻧﻤﻮد. ﻫﻤﭽﻨﯿﻦ ﺿﺮورت ﺑﺤﺚ و ﺑﺮرﺳﯽ ﻣﺎﻫﯿّﺖ ﺣﻘﻮﻗﯽ دﯾﻪ از آﻧﺠﺎ ﻋﯿﺎن ﻣﯿﮕﺮدد

the legal nature of diyah

diyah is accepted as a legal institution in islam and is one of the signature rulings of islam that existed in the pre-islamic era and was accepted and signed with the advent of islam. the reason for its acceptance is the quran, the sunnah of the prophet and the ahlul bayt (peace be upon them) and the consensus of jurists. the nature of diyah is one of the influential issues in the discussion of diyah, because accepting any type of nature for diyah has consequences. if we consider the nature of blood money as punishment, it should be said that, according to the rules of the chapter on guarantee and civil liability, the victim can, in addition to the blood money received, demand compensation for the damage and loss caused to him by the act of the offender by filing a lawsuit, and the court can also order compensation by establishing a causal relationship between the damage caused and the act of the offender. however, if we consider blood money to be of a civil (compensatory) nature that has been determined by the holy law to compensate the injured party, then due to the determination of its amount, nothing in addition to blood money can be demanded as compensation from the perpetrator of the act (criminal). also, the necessity of discussing and examining the legal nature of blood money becomes apparent from there.