Document Type : Original Article

Author

• m karimi

Abstract

It is stated in the definition of Qassama that it is an oath that is taken to prove the crime or the acquittal of the accused. Qasamah cannot be fulfilled except with Luth. It is for this reason that Luth owes the presumption of suspicion to prove the truth of the plaintiff's claim. Regarding the type of Emirates and the evidence that leads to the realization of Luth. There is no consensus among Imami jurists, therefore, any doubts and doubts about the authenticity of the Emirates that led to Luth in the eyes of any judge, considering the generality of the rule of Dara and the doubt that governs it, the judge cannot implement Qassama, In addition to the above cases, mere suspicion and emirates alone are not enough to enforce the oath, and the sworn oath of the plaintiff is a necessary condition for issuing a verdict mami jurists are of the opinion that in Qassam it is a condition that the arbitrator swears by knowledge. If the juror takes an oath in any way without knowledge. Due to the doubt in the science and generality of the Dar' rule, the material element of the crime is not realized, and it is for this reason that despite the Dar' rule, resorting to oaths in today's world, where the truth of people's words and oaths cannot be relied upon, cannot be justified and implemented. be In this article, we are looking for an answer to this question: can this rule be used as a negation of the argument of Qasama in Luth? .

Keywords

• The rule of Dara
• Suspicious
• Emirates
• Qassama
• Oath eaters
• Luth