Criminal Responsibility of Blind Killer in Imamieh Jurisprudence and Iran Rights

Nemesis or lack of nemesis of blind is one of controversial issues in Islamic jurisprudence. Some jurisconsults believe that blind against intentional killing, is not and cited reasons for this idea, in this research, we try to offer proper analysis about jurisprudence and right verdict blind by checking documents of these groups of jurisconsults. One of the results of this discussion is this fact that referred reason of adverse is two narrations that have many problems. This includes presence of and lack of obstacle, scoff in narrations document, thematic conflict of two narrations, proving two syntactic readings that leads to different meaning reading. According to authors, also these narrations cannot prove acclaim of these jurisconsults, because these narrations are without acclaim and in spite of presence of generalities and signifiers on killing sanctity and proving nemesis in intentional supposition, jurisconsult doesn’t need to these two narrations. For rights, about this, explicitly these are no assertion. It seems that ruler satisfied with same generalities and absolutes of nemesis in intentional killing and doesn’t know blindness solely as criminal responsibility and justifying crime, and by considering practices appearances, conceives anybody as responsible of his intentional consequences and results.