فصلنامه حقوق اسلامی
سال دوازدهم شماره 4 (پیاپی 47، زمستان 1394)

Participation in unlawful in terms of detection of evidence of a crime, is one of the most complex Legal-Juridical issues. This complexity makes the jurists provide various criteria. There are for criteria each of which has a weakness and lacks necessary efficiency. Because some put criminals in the margins of the action and some are incapable to distinguish perpetrators from those who have participated in it. The authors believe that by dividing crimes to simple and compound, and applying the right title for what that has occurred in reality, an effective criterion would be accessible.

Much importance has been attached to ‘commanding right and forbidding’ wrong in verses and hadiths, so that many jurisprudence scholars know it as the basis of the revolution against tyrannies and establishment of the Islamic system on one hand and the government's most important sustainability and durability strategy on the other hand. However despite the fact that the 8th Article of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran has introduced it as public duty, still there isnt necessary context to understand its goals and legal status for the legal scholars and governors to promote and institution-build and for the public thoughts to perform and demand it. It seems that the explanation of the legal basis of this social obligation can propound a proper intellectual pattern to other Muslim and human societies to ensure legal and ethical values. Accordingly, in this paper, firstly, the views presented on rational principles of ‘commanding right and forbidding wrong’ will be reviewed and criticized; Secondly, goals shared with contemporary legal institutions will be mentioned; and thirdly, the higher position of it in regard to the possession of justified basis, than the contemporary human rights organization will be proved.

The declared policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the Constitution and other upper hand documents is the stability of the marital relations and prevention of divorce; however, the process of developments in law and regulations of divorce shows the facilitation of divorce. From the past till now, the legal system of the Islamic Republic of Iran is going toward facilitation the divorce through two legislative and conventional methods. In legislative method, divorce is reformed in the form that the married woman can obtain divorce more facile than the past. In conventional method, the situation is made in such a way that the married man delegates his wife to divorce. This article criticizes this procedure and tries to investigate the solutions for removing family problems and evasion from divorce.

Keeping in view the increasing international relations and a global need for a more efficient international law, the idea of "Islam, the real source of international law" has been put forth and discussed with an analytical – descriptive approach in a bid to restore Islam's role in developing international law.
The research outcome shows the originality and independence of the legal system of Islam not only in terms of background but also in terms of principles, resources, purposes and principles of international law. Inspired by the Quran and prophetic tradition, Muslim jurisprudents living in the early Islamic century, put forth and discussed international law as Siyar (lit. normative conducts) under various juridical subjects such as jihad, war booties, taxes, trusts etc., albeit many hundred years before Hugo Grotius, the Dutch statesman and diplomat, who was called the “father of international law.” If the founding philosophy of international law is to regulate international relations, insure peace and global security, uphold equal rights of societies and nations and defend equal rights of the nations, we must admit that Islam is the real source and origin of international law in the world because the materialization of these lofty goals is made possible only in the light of Islamic teachings.

Mubahitah (to slander) is a jurisprudential expression that came from the term "Bahituhum" in the narration of the holy prophet of Islam. Some scholars consider it as the verb "accuse" and referring to that adjudicate the permission of accusing and defamation to the people of Bidah (innovation in religious matters); but some others consider as "strong and amazing argumentation" and therefore adjudicate to the prohibition of slandering to the people of Bidah.
The question is that whether the Mubahita inferred from the narrations means the strong and amazing argumentation or it means to slander the people of Bidah (innovation in religious matters). Considering the jurisprudential permission of slandering the people of Bidah (innovation in religious matters) based on expediency, whether such expediency exists in this era of information interchange and press acitivities that have characteristics such as being convincing, the extensiveness if the scope and influence, transparency, capability of instrumental use. Whether is this matter permutable in the legal system of the press based on the statute book?
It is believed that the criterion for the ones who consider it permutable to slander the people of Bidah, is the expediency of making hatred and banishing the people of following the people of Bidah, but it is a conversion of criterion and not only slandering the people of Bida is not the consequence of such expediency but also it provides the grounds for showing victimization and propaganda on the benefit of the people of Bidah and leads to weakening Islam and distrust to Muslims. In legal aspect, the government id responsible for executing Hadd and Tazir rules, and according to the principle of the legality of crime and punishment and the lack of criminalization of the instances of Bidah, the fact that the one who impose Bidah is complainant whould not cause the permissibility or legal excuse for immunity of the slanderer.

The rules of ‘retaliation’ in the light of the Holy Quran and its license restrictions in the three areas of private law, criminal law and international law issues are raised in this paper.
In the private law the question is whether we can take retaliation verses and vengeance verses, to reach liability and civil liability? In the first part of this article by rejecting those theories which do not accept liability by retaliation verses, this relation between liability and retaliation is reinforced.
In the area of ​​criminal law for crimes committed against life and limb, according to the verses of retaliation and retaliation the question is whether we can accept the retaliation for some people in front of one person? And whether this rule can be applied to crimes committed on the non-member injured such as the crimes of desecration of intimidation and coercion?
In the second part of the article the rules of retaliation against a person known to be error-free, but the implementation of the principle of non-object in crimes against injured or where the murderer does not have the similar part in his body is considered to be limited to some circumstances.
In the area of international law by accepting the principle of retaliation license for an Islamic state based on the verses, the possibility of retaliation between the Islamic State and retaliation of exactly the same abuses were not accepted against the enemy. Because of the "purpose" of civilians and "the direction of" the inhuman behaviors and the use of weapons of mass destruction, these measures are faced restrictions and prohibitions.