نشریه مطالعات فقه اسلامی و مبانی حقوق
پیاپی 31 (بهار و تابستان 1394)

While passing new Islamic Penal Codeat 1392/ 3013,The Legislator of Islamic Republic of Iran has shrunk from/avoided to add new titles of crime,out of increasing statutes- or any reason- nd,therefore,muggingis not criminalized as an independent crime. Considering that such a criminal actionshouldnot be put in abeyance, this paper studies itsmain elements, andthe similarities and differences with other similar crimes like:theft that require discretionary punishment (robbery, extortionetc.),blackmail, and frightening people by weapon; andexaminesits legal basis,so the honored judges can reconcilethis crimewith one of presented crimesin the light of circumstances of perpetration and perpetrator, and issue a proper order.

The hadith of "JahātMa‘āyish al-‘Ibād" (means of livelihood) is the only long hadith that presents the rules of transaction. The article explores the validityof this hadith from both aspects, source and indication.The first part talks about the hadith'schain of transmission, and the way of its rectification, and the second part studies its textual implication and the objectionsraised against it. Someinstances of resorting to this hadith among contemporary juristsare inspectedat the end.

Commercial Advertisement according to one definition is “a kind of communication that is made by a real or legal person with the purpose of introduction, attraction or encouragement towards a product, service, need, organization or teaching using different means addressing the public, a group or a person”. Legalization of advertisements due to its vast economic, social and cultural effects is essential from the public interests aspect, but several problems arise in enacting rules about advertisement; conformity with the religious measures and Islamic jurisprudence, which is necessary according to Iranian and Afghan constitutions is one of them. This article is studying the jurisprudential bases of criminalization of untrue advertisements in Shite and Hanafit jurisprudence comparing it with some examples of advertisement. The jurisprudential rules and principles studied in this article are as follow: prohibition of causing harm to others, prohibition of misrepresentation and deception, prohibition of lying, prohibition of aiding for sins and prohibition of “Najash”.

Theresponsibility of ‘āqilah has been under consideration and argued by jurists and legal specialistssince before Islam.‘Āqilah is the same as ‘aṣabahamongShi'a and Sunni jurists, which means male agnates of a murderer (who are liable for the payment of blood money). According to jurists, ‘āqilah are responsibleinthe cases like: unintentional homicide, intentional homicide andquasi intentional homicide committed by a minor and insane, intentional andunintentional homicidecommitted by a blind etc.,sixcasesoverall. Jurists believe that responsibility of ‘āqilah is not a prescriptive law, rather it isa situational law which means the liability is on the shoulders of the murderer in the first place. It is disputed that whether this rule is in force now or not. There are two ideasamong scholars concerning that does this responsibility is an exception to the rule of wizr (doer is the only responsibleperson of a crime) or not, and bothgroups have somereasons for their opinions. However, the reasons of both parties turn back to the base of blood money, for some believe that it belongs to penal code while the others consider it of civil code. In the viewpoint of Shi'a and Hanafijurists,blood money is a way to compensation, thus most of them believe that the rule of wizris notcapable ofexception.

The contracts with Khiyār(option, right of withdrawal)follow general and particularsentences.Particular sentences are those specified to a particularoption;butgeneral sentences are those applicable to all, or almost alloptions. General sentences are called"general rules of options". The paper presents and studies six rules including"being waivable", being heritable", "possessing after canceling a contract causes liability", "cancellation takes precedence over ratification", "possessing waives the option", and "destruction of the object does not waives the option" as general rules that are applicable in all options; and the rules of "prompt implementation is notnecessary", and "destruction of the object in the days of option imposes liability to who is not the ownerof option"as general rules that are applicable in almost all options. The data is collected in library method, and analyzedin descriptive-analytical method.

Piracy is one of the main threats that endanger the freedom of navigation, and International Lawhas providedpropermeansto face it, likeUniversal jurisdiction.Itallows states to claim criminal jurisdiction over an accused person regardless of where the alleged crime was committed, and regardless of the accused or victim's nationality.This right is confirmed by the Geneva Convention on the High Seas (1958), as well as the Law of the Sea Convention (1982).However,these treaties are deficientwhile prosecuting piracy attacks being launchedoff the shores like Somalia, nowadays;for these modern attacks does not meet the classic definitions of piracypresented by these treaties.Thus,lack of convenient means for prosecuting and taking proper legal action against pirates is a majorchallenge lied before the world. What makes the situation worse is that some states have not criminalized piracy in their domesticlaw, or some of them have not approved the Geneva Convention on the High Seas (1958) or the Law of the Sea Convention (1982). This paper besidesexamining the nature and concept of this crime, explores the problems like legal gaps in treaties,jurisdiction over this crime, and legal status and authority in domestic law.