تأملي در عدم سقوط حد بواسطه توبه زاني پس از قيام بينه (نقدي بر ماده ي 114 قانون مجازات اسلامي)

Studying Why the Repentance of Male Fornicator is Given no Lesser Punishment, after Qiyam Bayyinah(A Criticism on Article 114 of the Islamic Penal Code)

فقها در حكم توبه زاني پس از قيام بينه اختلاف نظر دارند.، مشهور آنها حكم مسأله را عدم سقوط حد دانستند، در حالي كه تعداد اندكي كه در رأس آنها شيخ صدوق و شيخ مفيد قرار گرفته ­اند، معتقد به سقوط حد در اين مورد مي ­باشند. قانون مجازات اسلامي نيز در ضمن ماده 114 از نظريه مشهور پيروي كرده است. نگارندگان پس از بررسي تفصيلي اين مسأله در نهايت به اين نتيجه مي ­رسند كه اگر چه در حكم به عدم سقوط حد، شهرت تحقق يافته است، منتها با توجه به اينكه مدرك اين شهرت بنابر ادعاي خود قائلين به قول اول، دلائلي همچون اصل استصحاب، اطلاق ادلّه حدود و ... است، نفس اين شهرت همچون اجماع مدركي ارزش استنادي ندارد و مهم بررسي مدرك اين شهرت است. پس از بررسي مستندات روشن مي­ شود كه هيچ يك از مستندات قول اول و همچنين هيچ يك از مستندات قول دوم نيز غير از روايت تحف العقول صحيح نمي ­باشند. اما در مورد روايت تحف العقول بايد گفت كه دلالت آن بر قول دوم تام بوده و سندش نيز با تحقيق در آن مشكلي ندارد. لذا در نهايت مي ­توان صحت قول دوم را استنتاج نمود.

Based on the verdict of whether or not to accept the repentance of male fornicator after Qiyam Bayyinah, there is a disagreement between jurists. Although some jurists such as Sheikh Sadooq and Sheikh Mofid believe that the repentance of male fornicator makes him deserving of lesser punishment, most of them are in an agreement that it cannot conducive to commutate the punishment. This was outlined by Article 114 of the Islamic Penal Code. Taking into account all these comments as well as examining them, the authors arrive at the conclusion that even though there are many narrations. No reference or documentary value specified to prove that the repentance of male fornicator makes him undeserving of lesser punishment. It is due to some evidence including the Istishab principle and the Hadd punishment etc, according to believers’ claim of first quote. There is also some weak evidence to believers’ claim of second quote including the lack of documentary evidence and relying on Tuaf al-uqūl narrative. Thus, the important thing is to investigate if the reputation evidence is reliable. After reviewing the documentations, it becomes clear that the believers’ claims of first quotes provide no proof of eligibility to be ascribed to. None of the believers’ claims of second quotes, on the other hand, are veracious except those of Tuaf al-uqūl narratives. Neither the believers’ claims of first quotes nor the believers’ claims of second quotes, except those of Tuaf al-uqūl narratives, are veracious enough to be ascribed to. However, the believers’ claims of second quotes are thoroughly complete concerning the Tuaf al-uqūl narratives. There is no problem with investigating the documentations. Confirming the authenticity of this document as being thoroughly complete according to the believers’ claims of second quotes, there is no doubt to accept the second quote in this regard.