The imposition of diya (financial compensation in Islamic law) on doctors, alongside the obligation to provide treatment and medical procedures that entail diya, leads to their reluctance to fulfill their responsibilities. Consequently, some laws specify that doctors are not liable in certain cases, such as organ transplants. In the case of abortion, despite previous declarations of non-responsibility, the new law does not have a clear position, and upon examining Islamic jurisprudence, most opinions indicate that doctors are obligated to pay diya, even in permitted abortions. Meanwhile, some alternative opinions offer solutions for relieving doctors of this responsibility, while others argue that authorization for the procedure leads to the nullification of diya. Considering governance in Islamic jurisprudence, using practical legal opinions in law formulation, referring to the principle of benevolence, and some other rules could provide a basis for the non-responsibility of doctors in performing their legal duties regarding abortion. The ambiguity arising from the silence of the law requires clarification and explicit expression.

One of the relatively common crimes that take place against the physical integrity of individuals are injuries that pierce the victim’, s body and cause suffering and fatigue and in some cases lead to the disability of that organ. The diya for this type of injury, which is called penetrating, is one-tenth of the human diya. Different angles of this crime have not been agreed upon by scholars and need to be studied and examined. Among the controversial cases, we can mention the exact definition of the piercing and the amount of the diya for piercing of the organs and the women’, s diya in these types of injuries. Based on the descriptive-analytical method, after proposing different jurisprudential viewpoints, the present study evaluates the aforementioned arguments and then shows with numerous arguments that penetrating injury, both in terms and in women’, s diya, is different from the opinion of the famous jurists and accordingly the legislator of the country. Therefore, a penetrating injury is an injury that splits the end parts of the body and does not come out from the other side, and the amount of its diya does not differ in men and women.

Bait al-Mal denotes a collection of public property at Islamic governor’s disposal that should be used for the social welfares of Muslims. In Islamic jurisprudence, Bait al-Mal is used for pursuing the goals of Islam. Inasmuch as it is for the benefits of Muslims, paying Diya (blood money) is one of the ways of spending Bait al-Mal. Thus, employing a descriptive and analytical method, the present study attempts to address the special cases in which Diya shall be paid from Bait al-Mal. Furthermore, the article will target the following questions:Who shall be responsible to pay Diya if the judge's mistake brings about death or disability?Is Aqilah (paternal kinship group of the criminal) responsible for murder?Who is responsible for paying Diya if the murderer does not have Aqilah or their Aqilah is not financially capable?If the claimant and the defendant do not have evidence, who is responsible for the victim's Diya?Who is responsible for the victim's Diya if they are killed in a crowd?Who is responsible for the victim's Diya if the murderer escapes or dies?Who is responsible for the victim's Diya if the murderer is unidentified?Who is responsible for the victim's Diya If Laqit commits the crime?Who is responsible for the victim's Diya if they are killed in fitnah (sedition)?What is the verdict if two persons confess to a murder?What is Ha’ishat and what is its decree?What is the sentence for the crimes of a blind person? Shall they be executed?What is the jurisprudential decree of defense against the lunatic’s assault?  The authors have endeavored to examine paying Diya in special cases through surveying jurisprudential documents and Hadith. For Bait al-Mal is responsible for paying Diya. Considering the review of the related literature, it should be mentioned that due to the significance of this issue, Islamic science scholars have composed research papers on its jurisprudential and legal dimensions. Nevertheless, on the contrary to other studies, the present article refrains from referring to repeated points and sets out to prompt new instances. Furthermore, it attempts to conceptualize such terms as Aqilah, Diya and Bait al-Mal, and analyze and make reference to various jurisprudential sources. In addition, another distinguishing feature of this research is not repeating the findings of other scholars, and focusing on the words of early and late jurists and emphasizing their jurisprudential approach and testifying their instances. What is more, the present study seeks to express the favorable opinion after examining and analyzing disparate narratives. Therefore, the article sets out to address the jurisprudential recognition of paying Diya from Bait al-Mal in specific cases and mentions 13 cases collected from the expressions of the jurists.In so doing, this article will target issues in which Diya shall be paid from Bait al-Mal: when the judge makes a mistake; when the murderer does not have Aqilah; when the claimant and the defendant do not have evidence; when one is killed in a crowd; when the murder and manslaughter criminal escapes; when the murderer is unidentified; when Laqit commits the crime; when one is killed in sedition defying rebels; when two persons confess to a murder; Ha’ishat (injury and murder during the fear of day and night); when one is killed in the military camp; when one commits a murder as an act defense against the lunatic’s assault; and when the murder is committed by a blind person.Although waging war against the one who has rebelled against the Imam and the Islamic ruler is mandatory, the Diya of the victim in sedition and war with rebels is the responsibility of Bait al-Mal. Furthermore, when two people have confessed to a murder, and if there is no collusion, the verdict of execution will be suspended and the Diya of the victim will be paid from Bait al-Mal. The Diya in Ha’ishat (which signifies fear that appears at night and during the day and causes injury or murder in such a way that it does not become clear who has killed or injured someone else) is the responsibility of Bait al-Mal. Blind people are not executed for their crime and Diya will be the responsibility of their Aqilah. If they do not have Aqilah, Diya is paid from their property; otherwise, the imam will pay the Diya. If one is killed in militia or a military barracks, their Diya is paid from Bait al-Mal. If a madman intends to kill a sane person and the sane person kills him in defense of his life or his own belongings, Diya will be the responsibility of  their Aqilah, and if there is no Aqilah,  Diyeh is paid from Bait al-Mal.Therefore, the purpose of producing Bait al-Mal is to safeguard the Muslims’ welfare in such a manner that according to the principle "the blood of a Muslim killed shall not be wasted", preserving the blood of Muslims and preventing it from being wasted is one of the economic objectives of Bait al-Mal.

'Anan means the disorder of sexual desire in men and their inability to erect the penis, which there is disagreement among Imamiyah jurists about the amount of diya (blood money) on the penis. Most jurists led by Sheikh Tusi, referring to arguments such as narrations, consensus, paralysis of the penis and the principle of exemption from Dhimeh (obligation), believe in the proof of one-third of the full diya and the Islamic Penal Code (approved in 2013) in the last part of Article 662 has followed the popular view of jurists. Contrary to the most jurists' view, the author has achieved two different views from other jurists by examining jurisprudential texts. The group, headed by Ibn Junaid Scafi, one of the pioneers, and Ayatollah Khoei, a contemporary, believe in the proof of the full diya, through referring to the narration of Sakuni and referring to the narrations, which indicate the proof of a full diyat in a man's penis. Another group, which belongs to Ayatollah Madani Kashani, tries to examine the issue in detail considering the causes of male impotence. The present article, through a descriptive-analytical research, has explained and analyzed the existing views on the issue and their documents, and by undermining the arguments of two well-known and unpopular views, has chosen the detailed theory of the late Madani Kashani as a correct view.

The conflict of evidences proving disputes (litigations or lawsuits) ” is an occurrence which comes in to view in both proving criminal offences and civil offences; yet, its happening in proving criminal offences contains damaging (destructive) consequences which it requires more attention to take away. Although with considering the Islamic Penal Code of Iran and principles resolving conflict in Usul al-fiqh science, it is possible to be presented general solutions to stop this mentioned occurrence (solutions such as option (takhiyr), lapse, the primacy or supremacy of law and etc.). But it is the duty of a judge to accord every of these solutions with the different cases of the conflicting evidences of proving disputes (litigations or lawsuits). The method of this research paper is the descriptive-analytic for its issue. Because of the difference (distinction) in the legal system of the Hadd offences in comparison with other offences, it has concentrated on the cases of the conflict of evidences proving crimes which deserve (require) Qisas, Diya and Ta’zir and a proper solution for every case has been determined by the paper. The importance of this research is that the effectiveness of the presented solutions (which has been determined by the Islamic Penal Code of Iran) depends on selecting and implementing every solution appropriate to the conflicting case which has happened. Therefore, it assists a criminal judge to stop this conflicting happening and help him to execute justice better. As the research finding, it should be stated that types of crime, types of proofs and cases of conflict are three important components for choosing an appropriate solution to end conflicts which they are necessary to be regarded by judges to secure (guarantee) justice.

According to the fatwa (legal opinion concerning Islamic Law) of the Islamic famous jurists and some of Sunni Islamic schools of jurisprudence (fiqh) (the Hanbali school), there is dissimilarity (difference) between diya (punitive compensation) of women and men and the Islamic penal code which has been codified based on Imami jurisprudence has accepted this opinion (civil code, Article 300 previously and Article 500, although this attitude has opponents among the Islamic jurists. From the other side, in recent years with arising the feminist movements, it has been tried to state that Islam and especially Shi'a jurisprudence has no necessary dynamic and it has leaded to gender discrimination and in some cases it has caused the aggression against women. This paper aims to study the purpose (hikmah) of this dissimilarity (difference) between diya (punitive compensation) of women and men from the view of Imami dynamic jurisprudence and Islamic law, the comprehensiveness of Islamic ordinances (ahkam) and philosophy of this difference with documentary method. Therefore, after presenting the several debates which have been taken apart between these two opinions, it revealed that according to Shi'a these Islamic ordinances (ahkam) are valid and not against the noble Quran and Sunnah and it accords with other available Islamic decrees (rules) in legal system of Islam. Also psychic and bodily differences between men and women are necessity of creation order and it does not induce changes of Islamic ordinances (ahkam).

The obligation to compensate for the damages incurred on individuals is regarded as one of the most important principles of Fiqh and Law, and the bodily harms to women are included among compensable bodily damages. In case of harm, a financial compensation known as Diya is paid to the injured person, while in the pre-revolutionary laws of Iran, no reference was made to such financial compensations for damage. But with the victory of Islamic revolution and adopting of the Constitutional Law, an appropriate ground was developed for the judicial system of Iran to be adapted with Islamic legal principles as well as with the Shi'a Twelver doctrine. With the enactment of the Diyat Law, the amount of Diya for women was reduced to half the amount of Diya for men, in some cases. Due to the perception that exist about Islam enjoying a perfect legal system and assigning a fundamental role to women as well as the international adverse publicity of the ongoing law, the Legislature proceeded to resolve the problem of inequity of Diya for women and men re-codifying the Islamic Penal Code, enacted 2013, in order to disregard the gender for damage compensation and to observe the international norms. The legislators introduced the law that the government has to pay the balance of inequity of Diya for women.

The eyelids may be completely and separately removed. The contribution of each of the upper and lower eyelids in the payment of diyat and also the amount of diyat for the complete removal of eyelids is one of the issues in which the jurists have disagreed. If the eyelids are removed, each of the eyelids separately considers the fixation of one third of the eye diyat in the upper eyelid and half of the diyat of the same eye in the lower eyelid. Well-known Imamiyyah jurists, in case of complete removal of eyelids, have considered full diyat and have commented on the amount of diyat for eyelids in case of removal of each eyelid separately to pay one-third of the blood money (Diya) in the upper eyelid and half of the blood money in the lower eyelid. This theory is also stated in Article 590 of the Islamic Penal Code. This view is based on the claim of consensus and documented in the narration. Many jurists have taken other positions after the controversy and rejection of the arguments of the famous view and according to the literally news (traditions or narrations or akhbar) in the assumption of the issue. In the present article, while criticizing and analyzing the existing views on the issue and by weakening the arguments of other statements, we have finally accepted the opinion of non-distinction in the payment of the diyat to the upper and lower eyelids. The opinion of the author is based on general narrations (narratives) and according to the diyat rule of the body paired members.

The opinion of Islamic jurists are different on the subject off inheritance of DIYA'(blood money). On the other hand, the matter of inheritance of DIYA' has important legal effects from the viewpoint of tort law and general theory of obligations. These are the main questions: Who are the heirs of DIYA'? Does homicide by error, like murder, is an impediment to Inheritance of DIYA'? In case of murder, are the heirs of propostius allowed the choice between Qisas and DIYA' or the only obligatory remedy for murder is Qisas and it will be transferred to DIYA' by mutual consent of murderer and victims' heirs?The article purports, While examining different opinions of Islamic(specially Shiite) jurists concerning these questions and some others, provide due solutions to protect the rights of tortfeasors, victims, heirs and creditors of propostius.

If the premeditated murderer, in addition to being sentenced to qisas (retaliation), has also been sentenced to death for hadd (punishments that under Islamic law are mandated and fixed by God), such as moharebeh (waging war against God), according to Article 133 of the Penal Code, qisas is prior to the execution of hadd, and the avengers of blood are asked to retaliate. However, if the avengers of blood refuse to demand the qisas immediately, the premeditated murderer will be executed as hadd. The problem of the current paper is whether in this case the qisas nafs (qisas for life) turns into diya (blood money) and is subject to death in Article 435 of the Penal Code or not. The law regarding the conversion of qisas nafs into diya is vague in this case, and this issue has not been specifically dealt with in jurisprudential books. In this paper, legal articles as well as jurisprudential views have been examined and a set of arguments and evidences have been used, which based on the hypothesis of this study, with the execution of the premeditated murderer, the issue of qisas is obviated and the conversion of qisas into diya also lacks valid legal evidence, and from a jurisprudential point of view, the view of not turning qisas into diya is stronger.