كليدواژه :
اطلاقات , عمومات , مخصص شرعي , اصل 167
چكيده فارسي :
پس از پيروزي انقلاب اسلامي بخش مهمي از قوانين كيفري ما برگرفته از فقه بوده و قانونگذار در عين التزام شديد به احكام شرعي، در تصويب اين دسته از قوانين به شكل گزينشي عمل كرده است و گاه اصل يك حكم و گاه فروع يا شروط و قيود آنها را بيان نكرده است. اينكه بايد در چنين مواردي به عمومات و اطلاقات قانون عمل كرد با حكم خاص شرعي، مورد بحث است. برخي سليقه شارع در گزينشي عمل كردن و التزام به احكام شرعي را دليل عمل به خاص دانسته و برخي با استناد به اينكه طبق اصل 167 قانون اساسي تنها در حالت ابهام و اجمال و تعارض و سكوت قانون مي توان به فقه مراجعه كرد و حالت اطلاق و عموم، هيچ يك از موارد مذكور شمرده نمي شود، عمل به خاص را جايز نمي دانند. قول مختار از نظر اين مقاله، تفكيك ميان احكام خاص اجماعي و احكام خاص مورد اختلاف است كه در اولي مانند حكم ممسك و ناظر بايد به مخصص شرعي مراجعه نمود؛ اما در حالت دوم عمل به عمومات و اطلاقات نمود.
چكيده لاتين :
After victory of the Islamic Revolution, a great part of our penal laws were taken from jurisprudence. The legislator, while he has been strictly committed to the religious rules, has approved this group of laws in a selective way. Sometimes, he has not mentioned a [religious] rule itself; and, some other times, he has not mentioned its consequences,
conditions, and constraints. Here, the author discusses to find when, in such cases, general rules of law should be followed and when a specified religious rule should be followed. Some scholars think that the legislator is committed to the religious rules shows that he acts according to the particular; and, relying upon the Article 167 of the Constitution according to which the judge, on the pretext of the silence of or deficiency of law in the matter, or its brevity or contradictory nature, cannot refrain from admitting and examining cases and delivering his judgment and in such cases he has to deliver his judgment on the basis of authoritative Islamic sources and authentic fatwa, and the case of 'absolute' and 'general' has nothing to do with the above, some others are of the opinion that no act can be taken on the basis of the particular. The author believes that, in this regard, the particular and generally accepted rules differ from those which are disputed. In the former case (for example rules concerning abstainer and observer) one should refer to the specifying religious rules; in the latter, however, general law should be followed.
