Thesis:

A comparative study of the rule of reluctance from the famous perspective of jurists and Ayatollah Khoei

In the texts of Islamic jurisprudence, the role of reluctance in the removal of criminal responsibility is considered as an absolute rule, and it is stated under the title "removal of our astikharwa against". Ayatollah Khoei's view and theory in some cases, the rule of reluctance of opinions, is different from famous jurists. When the desire is wise and mature, by drawing an intellectual conflict between the two phenomena of killing and being killed; He considers the cruelty of involuntary murder to be acceptable, and therefore, he does not deserve retribution, and considers only the ransom to be his responsibility. This is despite the fact that the famous people, relying on some narrative evidence and consensus, consider Makra as deserving of retribution. In the words of jurists, reluctance is sometimes used in a general sense that includes compulsion; But reluctance, which does not remove the responsibility in murder, is a state in which a person has some degree of intention, and therefore it is different from compulsion, that is, a state in which a person's intention has been lost, and is similar to urgency. Intention and will are of particular importance in the validity of legal acts. If a person's intention and will is distorted by reasons such as reluctance, his actions lose their influence and validity; Ayatollah Khoei agrees with the famous opinion of the Imamiyya jurists in "Threat beyond the Self"; However, referring to the rule of "confrontation", they believe that where "Makra" is threatened by a Muslim on his life or his relatives and thus commits murder, Makra will be imprisoned for the rest of his life and the murderer should not be retaliated and ransom will be paid.

Keywords: Key words: Reluctance rule, Ayatollah Khoei, famous jurisprudence, reluctance to kill