According to the news portal of the Research Institute for Contemporary Jurisprudence Studies, the 232nd scientific session of the Jurisprudence of Judiciary and Penal Law Group, titled “Feasibility of Converting Limb Retribution,” was held on Wednesday, October 15, 2025, with significant participation from researchers and scholars of judiciary and penal law and jurisprudence.
In this session, Hujjat al-Islam wa al-Muslimin Ibrahim Bagheri, a member of the Jurisprudential Scientific Council of the Judiciary, presented his findings on the jurisprudential and legal dimensions of converting limb retribution to blood money, while Ayatollah Jafar Najafi Bostan, a professor of advanced jurisprudential studies at the Qom Islamic Seminary, provided a scientific critique of the topic.
At the start of the session, the scientific moderator, Hujjat al-Islam wa al-Muslimin Ali Mohammadi Jorkouyeh, referring to the session’s topic, highlighted the significance of retribution in Islamic penal jurisprudence and the classification of crimes into intentional, quasi-intentional, and purely accidental, noting that retribution is prescribed in Islam for intentional crimes.
In continuation, Hujjat al-Islam wa al-Muslimin Ibrahim Bagheri, a member of the Jurisprudential Scientific Council of the Judiciary, presented his findings and, while thanking the organizers and the critic, stated: “Our discussion is about converting the punishment of limb amputation to blood money, which has received significant attention in recent years. Some decision-makers are attempting to convert limb retribution entirely or partially to blood money, but this issue involves numerous complexities and challenges.”
He noted that the idea dates back to before 2009 and, quoting the late Ayatollah Shahroudi, added: “He stated that 90% of limb retribution cases are not implemented, and recently, the discussion of conversion has become more serious.”
The member of the Jurisprudential Scientific Council of the Judiciary referred to three jurisprudential perspectives on retribution:
- The prevailing view, which considers retribution the primary punishment for intentional crimes.
- A view that considers retribution deferrable and allows conversion to blood money.
- The legislator’s view, which, in Article 16, considers retribution the primary punishment but imposes restrictions in Articles 359 and 360.
The member of the Jurisprudential Scientific Council of the Judiciary continued: “In any case, if the option of choice in certain cases falls within the scope of sharia, there is no issue. However, what some decision-makers in legislative and judicial matters currently aim for is primarily to completely eliminate the punishment of amputation, not as an optional choice but entirely, so that amputation is not implemented, and to seek an alternative that determines a substitute for this ruling. This is the main motivation for my pursuit of this topic and whether this approach is truly compliant with sharia or not. This was the core issue that led me to pursue this discussion.”
Hujjat al-Islam wa al-Muslimin Bagheri emphasized: “These challenges are resolvable and are not a pretext for completely eliminating retribution.”
He added: “The legislator and the judiciary must train specialized personnel for the implementation of retribution. Additionally, international conventions provide mechanisms to preserve religious rulings, such as reservations and withdrawal from commitments.”
Referring to the issue of “equivalence” in implementing limb retribution, he stated: “Jurists have ruled that precise customary equivalence is not necessary, and relative equivalence is sufficient, as retribution was implemented during the time of the Prophet (PBUH) and Amir al-Mu’minin (AS).”
The member of the Jurisprudential Scientific Council of the Judiciary pointed to three solutions for cases where limb retribution is practically unenforceable:
- Closest to Equivalence: “Blood money can be used as a substitute punishment, which is accepted by jurists and the author of Jawahir.”
- Preservation of Established Rights: “Based on narrations, if retribution is not feasible, the established right to punishment is preserved, and conversion to blood money is permissible.”
- Intervention of the Religious Authority: “The supreme religious leader (Vali-e Faqih) can issue a conversion ruling based on expediency, though this ruling may be temporary.”
Hujjat al-Islam Bagheri concluded his remarks: “The discussion of converting limb retribution is not a topic that can be fully addressed in 20 minutes; it requires in-depth jurisprudential, legal, and operational examination. However, in my view, if retribution is truly unenforceable, jurisprudence provides solutions that can be resorted to, and they must be approached with precision and wisdom.”
Critique by Ayatollah Bostan: Suspending a Religious Ruling with Superficial Pretexts Is Unacceptable
Following the presentation by the member of the Jurisprudential Scientific Council of the Judiciary, Ayatollah Jafar Najafi Bostan, a professor of advanced jurisprudential studies at the Qom Islamic Seminary, emphasizing the necessity of implementing limb retribution, stated: “In cases where the victim insists on retribution, religious rulings should not be suspended with pretexts such as the possibility of complications.”
The professor of advanced jurisprudential studies at the Qom Islamic Seminary addressed three key points:
- Forensic Medicine Criteria and the Condition of “Probability” or “Certainty” Ayatollah Bostan, examining jurisprudential texts, addressed the difference between “probability” and “certainty” regarding complications from injury and stated: “If mere probability becomes a barrier to implementing retribution, this issue requires discussion. Some jurists have emphasized certainty and assurance.”
He noted: “If we suspend the ruling based solely on the probability of complications, we have distanced ourselves from jurisprudence. This issue was less addressed in the presentation.”
- Criticism of Overreliance on Forensic Medicine Criticizing current laws, he said: “Too much weight is given to forensic medicine opinions without requiring justice in their assessments… With this mechanism, the implementation of retribution is easily halted, which is inconsistent with the spirit of sharia.”
The professor of advanced jurisprudential studies at the Qom Islamic Seminary considered this approach contrary to the practice of Amir al-Mu’minin (AS) and stated: “During the time of Amir al-Mu’minin (AS), a thief’s hand was amputated, and then he was taken to the guest house for treatment… Years later, that same person proudly said, ‘The best of people amputated my hand.’”
- Issues with Some Laws Regarding Equivalence Referring to the condition of “depth compliance” in the current law, he said: “Most jurists have not mentioned the condition of depth; customary length and width are sufficient… These medical precisions, resembling centimeter-by-centimeter equivalence, were not considered in jurisprudence.”
Referring to Article 400 of the Islamic Penal Code, he noted: “Although this article allows retribution to a lesser extent, it still relies on criteria that lead to the suspension of the ruling’s implementation.”
Ayatollah Bostan concluded by emphasizing the need for legal reform: “Some of our laws are not only incomplete but also unclear at times; this ambiguity gives implementers leeway to suspend the execution of rulings. They need revision.”
In the final part of the session, participants raised various questions about the jurisprudential, legal, and operational dimensions of converting limb retribution. The main topics of these discussions included:
- Practical limitations and challenges in implementing limb retribution
- Precise medical criteria and their impact on the execution of rulings
- The role of the judiciary and the need to train specialized personnel for the precise implementation of rulings
- The necessity of revising related laws to resolve ambiguities and facilitate the execution of justice
These discussions highlighted that the issue of converting limb retribution, in addition to its jurisprudential dimensions, requires expert analysis and extensive collaboration among jurists, legal scholars, and implementers.
It is worth noting that this specialized session demonstrated that the issue of converting limb retribution to blood money is a complex matter requiring in-depth jurisprudential, legal, and operational examination. Proponents of conversion cite operational reasons, expediency, and international commitments, while critics emphasize the preservation of religious rulings and preventing the gradual suspension of divine laws.
Precise examination of this issue within jurisprudential and legal frameworks, along with consideration of societal expediency and the execution of justice, is necessary to ensure that future decisions are made with greater wisdom and precision.