Wasted blood.”

This text is not provided. Please provide the Farsi text for translation.
Hossein Raeisi

When it comes to the right to life, the necessity of preserving the lives of individuals and ensuring this right is protected becomes apparent. There are numerous violations of the right to life and countless ways in which this right is infringed upon in the world. From air pollution and lack of proper hygiene and nutrition that gradually lead to death, to deliberate killings of individuals, all fall under this category. In our country, all kinds of violations of the right to life are prevalent. Unfortunately, the most common method is for a person to be killed and their most valuable asset, which is the right to life, to be taken away from them. Not only does no one stand up to defend and protect this right, but due to existing laws and customary judicial procedures, the perpetrators of these crimes are protected by the law. They remain immune from any form of punishment and all that is left is to present the victim as a mere casualty…

“Mohdoraldam” is an Arabic term that has entered our criminal law literature after the 1979 revolution and is still being used with various interpretations in legal developments and new legislation; in order to prevent the unjust shedding of blood and the imposition of personal judgments and values in the pursuit of discrimination and barbarism. In the following, I will briefly explain the legal tools for violating this right.

The term “muhdoraldam” is used in contrast to “muhqoonaldam” (protected blood) in Islamic legal literature. The origin of this phrase, which carries a heavy meaning, is derived from the establishment and special importance of the death penalty in Islamic law. Islamic countries and other countries that implement the death penalty use the phrase “deserving death” to justify this punishment. They use other justifications to deem a person deserving of death. This justification, which leads to the violation of the right to life, must not be allowed to pass through the channels of the judicial system, so that the determination of life and death is not left to the people. (When the death penalty is established in the legal system and the government deems itself worthy of determining the worthiness of individuals for life or death, this leads to a cultural establishment that allows for the measurement of death against life or the right to life, which also affects the people). Although lawmakers and

In the Islamic Penal Code, which has been compiled based on scattered translations of Shia jurisprudence and has undergone several changes since 1982, the central point has always been that the killing of humans will only be punishable by retribution or execution if the victim was not legally deserving of death. (Article 226 of the Islamic Penal Code, approved in 1991).

This issue remains in force in the new Islamic Penal Code without mentioning the phrase specified in Article 226 of the previous law.

What is relevant to the justification of murder in criminal law literature is still noteworthy when considering other legal provisions in terms of personal conduct and judicial behavior.

In the new Islamic Penal Code, with the removal of articles 226 and 295 of the previous law, which explicitly contained terms justifying killing and disregarding human life, the prevailing belief was that the private sphere of personal judgment and the act of killing individuals had come to an end. This belief, with regard to the wording of article 302 of the new Islamic Penal Code, which stated “if the victim has any of the following conditions, the perpetrator will not be sentenced to retaliation or payment of blood money,” is a denial of crime or a justification for criminal acts, which is an incorrect innovation. This is because the wording in section (a) which states, “the perpetrator of a crime that warrants the taking of a life,” allows for personal discretion in determining what warrants taking a life, which is exactly the words used in place of disregarding human life or the translations of disregarding human life. This permission is completed in section (b) of article 291 of the new

What comes from the general law, with the consideration of the word “perpetrator,” seems to suggest that only if the victim is known to have been deserving of death based on a definitive court ruling and is killed by another means, the perpetrator of this crime will not be punished; however, based on the usual judicial procedure and the two decisive votes of the Supreme Court in a case of mass murders in Kerman, where a ruling was issued to not consider the belief in the victim’s worthlessness, and in another case where a dispute between two criminal courts regarding an honor killing occurred; it seems that under the influence of the patriarchal system and the belief that a woman is always the honor of a man and a man can even commit a crime to protect it, simply believing in the victim’s worthlessness is enough to carry out the crime. As a result, these days we are witnessing an increase in honor killings on one hand, and on the other hand, it can be observed

As a result, despite the lawmakers not using the term “mohdoraldam” (meaning permission to commit murder and take human lives), this phrase carries the weight of being a justification for assassination and taking lives, especially in the face of women’s rights and opposition to those who may criticize Islam and its principles. This interpretation will lead to the spread of ideological terrorism.