Review of Jurisprudential Views about the Blood Money of Men & Women

Abstract

Three Jurisprudential views have been presented regarding Blood Money of Men & Women. One is absolute equality; the second is absolute halving & the third is equality up to one-third & halving more the third. The scales of validity of each view’s reasons based on rules of Jurisprudential origins are research problem. The question is, how much reliable are the reasons of pointed views regarding the blood money of men & women? The importance of the price that Sharia has legitimized for the soul and parts of a human is the same as the sanctity of the soul and his parts in the eyes of Sharia; therefor, differentiation between blood money of men and women is very important; because the discussion belongs to the rights of men and women. On the other hand reviewing controversial issues plays a significant role in identifying the rightful view. So study in this field is valuable. This research purposes to review the opinions of jurisprudents regarding the research topic analytically-critically and using the library sources and to show the valid view. The results present that the view believing in which the blood money of women is halve of blood money of men is closer to accuracy; because the verse indicating the rule of blood money is specified general text and although the quiet consensus over halve being of the blood money of women is an uncertain reason, but it is able to specify the uncertain general text. The difference between men and women in the rule of blood money is why that the loss due to the affliction occurred against victim referring to his or her family is not equal; because the men and women are different in their responsibilities. The compensation of wounds is analogized to the rule of blood money; because the main rule is unanimous and comprehensible.