مجله پژوهش های فقهی
سال نهم شماره 4 (زمستان 1392)

Oath as one of the evidences to prove claim has been normally accepted in all legal systems. Obviously، every judicial system to maintain the creditability، influence and power of oath may consider special requirements which are mainly consistent with prevailing values of that society. Since monotheism and religion are core values of Iran''s society، the legislator with stressing on these values has only taken the oath in Allah''s name valid. Emphasizing on the necessity of this requirement in legal disputes between Iranian Muslims with non-Iranian ones، as noted Iranian and Muslim oath، is entirely reasonable and does not arise any problem or question. But the emphasis on the necessity of this requirement in cases of non-Muslim Iranians and foreigners especially non-Muslim foreigners poses a question which Iran''s law has not explicitly dealt with. So according to article 167 of Iranian constitution the answer must be sought in Islamic jurisprudence and Sharia. The present paper has attempted to find out the answer to this question with investigation of the oath in international and interfaith legal claims from the viewpoint of Islamic jurisprudence.

The main issue in the context of Pzhvhh explain and evaluate the application of a principled theory of Sheikh Ansari (1281 AH). He Fqaht accreditation process context، the proposition Drastnbat Sutra of religious and theological arguments and criticism Legal Decisions in principle is made ​​use of. Sheikh Ansari in the context of credit terms such as sutra clearly documented، does not conflict with the strong unity of descent. Context of words، sentences and verses from a variety of explanations and arguments in the context of the following verses of Sheikh Ansari is traceable Ahkam. Limiting the range of meaning، including explicit citations omitted and applications in the context of Sheikh Ansari is considered.

The consideration of the problem of the purity or impurity of people of the book seems to be of the utmost importance،since nowadays the relationship between Muslims and people of the book has been inevitable and some questions have been raised with regard to it. Although the people of the book are commonly regarded as impure by the Shiite Jurisprudents، a great many contemporary and early Shiite jurisprudents regard the people of the Book as pure; and they، except for few Sunni Scholars، have regarded them as pure. The problem of the purity or impurity of the people of the book has to be explained since the present circumstances involve communication among people who are a different race and have different religion. Those jurisprudents who have regarded the people of the book as pure have appealed to the principle of purity and innocence and the inadequacy of the arguments advanced by their opponents. On the other hand،The jurisprudents who have regarded the people of the book as impure have appealed to some Quranic verses and traditions; even some have claimed that there is consensus in this regard. Having briefly considered the concept of polytheism، this writing is concerned to explain the arguments put forward by these two groups of jurisprudents، and provide a comprehensive analysis of the problem of the purity or impurity of the people of book. This writing is not going to examine the different aspects of this important issue in great detail.

The sixth parliament in the Wednesday 1379/17/01 at an open session passed the law of organ transplant including a single article and three notes. In this note designate that the reference of organ transplant is the will of the patient and the permission of his relation after the death. At the present paper، the author analyzes the view point and opinion of the scholars regarding the possibility of these two elements as the main reference of organ transplant. The authors believe that the criterion of organ transplant as a religious order is exigency. But the will and permission cannot assume as the main cause of organ transplant. So if these two elements are not present، the removal of a member from dead is just an exigency action.

Though، in intentional murder، blood-money which should be received depends upon agreement between him and heirs of the murdered person (in other words، it is reconciliatory)، according to Abi Basir’s hadith، if a murderer escapes and cannot be found، blood-money should be taken from his properties and، if this is not possible، in the next stage from his relatives، and finally from Public Treasury. There are many questions about this hadith from among which we may mention the following ones: “Does this hadith concern its own occasion or may it be generalized to cover cases such as cases in which the murderer commits suicide or is killed by someone other than the heir of the murdered person and without his [heir’s] permission? Concerning quasi intentional murder، if the murderer has no financial ability، may blood-money be taken from his relatives and then from Public Treasury? The present article discusses this hadith and questions about it.

Amongst Imami scholors، Sharif Murtadā is one of the first jurists who created some books in genre of comparative jurisprudence. Amongst his books in this genre، the most important after Intisar is Masail AL- Nāşiriyyāt which is composed to explain and sometimes criticize the legal positions of his great grandfather (from his mother side)، namely Naşir uţrūşh. This essay concerns to study the methodology of Murtadā in his argumentations and deductions with emphasis on his legal sources and proofs. The most common in his legal sources is the consensus of Imam scholars which is employed to feel the need for legitimacy in absence of isolated tradition which is not accepted by Murtadā and his master Mufid، though Murtadā claims that the main source of Imami jurisprudents is unanimous traditions، and he tried to improve Imami legal positions on the basis of Kitab (quran) and even isolated traditions and legal analogy which are not accepted by imami scholors or Murtadā and his master.

The dowry Is a gift that God has given to women and It has been discussed in various verses، But it has not been for a certain amount، But whatever value is cited It is a woman''s right، and Upon her marriage، is dowry Owner، but Ownership is on shaky dowry half and by Becoming a partner or a deceased partner or spouse is in innate apostasy، But if you are not sure of the establishment dowry She is entitled to half of Nuts، I. e. if the couple would divorce before sex Or be a renegade man before sex She is entitled to half dowry and if one of the spouses died before they sex according to popular theory dowry is entitled to half Although the unpopular theory of female celebrities deserve all the dowry they do.