An Examination of the Validity of the Proofs of the Famous Opinion of Imamia Jurists about Murder under Duress

The present paper, while examining the validity of the proofs of the famous opinion of juristsconcerning murder under duress, explains the evidences which strengthen non-retaliation of theperpetrator as well as the solutions that may be raised as substitutes for the famous opinion. Forthis purpose, it has been shown that the Zorara›s Narration is defective in terms of hierarchyof its narrators and signification for murder under duress and the traditions of the chapter ofimpermissibility of taqiyyah (precautionary dissimulation) about bloods do not include murderunder duress. Citing idjma (consensus) is not correct either; since in addition to the differentviews of some later jurists such as Ayattollah Khoei, due to the above said narrations, idjma ismadraki (consensus whose sources are known) and may not be cited. Neither does the equalityof the two risks preclude the resort to duress in murder, nor does it cause the retaliation of theperpetrator who was victim of duress. Comparison of duress with necessity in murder is paralogismand invalid due to their difference. The following may be cited among the reasons fornon-retaliation of the victim of duress: the murder not being violent, the existence of repellingdubiety as to Hadd like retaliation and the interference of the two precepts and consequently,application of the principle of option because of their equivalence.