فصلنامه فقه
پیاپی 115 (پاییز 1402)

Recourse from contract termination refers to the ability of a person who terminates a contract to subsequently regret their decision and revoke the termination, thereby reinstating the contract. This research, conducted through an analytical-descriptive method and relying on library sources, explores the nature of the right to terminate and its distinction from the right of recourse from termination. To establish the prohibition of such recourse, even if it may be supported with caution, this study cites principles such as "what is void cannot be revived," "the prohibition of benefiting from void property," "dominion," "the disappearance of the effects of termination after its establishment," and, most importantly, the principle of "the primacy of necessity in contracts." Additionally, it argues against the existence of valid reasons for allowing recourse from the right to terminate, while critically examining opposing arguments. It is suggested that recourse (revocation) from contract termination presents both jurisprudential and legal challenges, leading to practical complications and increased disorder in contracts, resulting in an escalation of lawsuits, as well as certain societal costs.

MetaVerse, or the metaverse, is a broad concept of the next generation internet with a three-dimensional and decentralized environment where individuals can engage in buying and selling digital assets through non-fungible tokens (NFTs) with full ownership, access services and products regardless of any licensing requirements. Given the political, economic, and sanction-related conditions that obstruct and prohibit the transfer of any capital to the country, and considering the inherent nature of a sales contract where the transfer of ownership occurs simultaneously with the contract's conclusion, it raises questions. Firstly, can sanctions in this context be considered as destruction under the "destruction principle"? Secondly, how can the conditions for the realization of a sale, including the tangibility of the sold item and the practical manifestation of receipt, be justified in this context? This pioneering descriptive-analytical paper interprets and considers sanctions as an embodiment of the term "destruction" in the mentioned principle. It argues that coercive reconciliation and the causative agent of harm cannot be attributed to a specific person, thereby precluding the enforcement of compensatory measures and resulting in a nullified sale and damages incurred by the seller. Furthermore, in accordance with the content of the "destruction" principle, all the conditions for a valid sale exist within the MetaVerse, thus allowing for the extension of the "destruction" principle to the MetaVerse space.

It is possible to sell a part of a fungible property in several ways, including in bulk and in common. However, another form of this type of sale, called the sale of " uncertain unit" has been studied in jurisprudence books, which has not been given much attention in the Persian legal literature. In this type of sale, an unspecified individual from the individuals of a whole is sold after dividing it into several independent individuals without its ratio to the whole being in the form of a common fraction, so that it has the rules of common sale. Also, since the goods is partial and not general according to the assumption, it differs from the usual general cases in the definite where the seller is general. In fact, in cases where the sale takes place in a collective or general form, the seller is hesitant, but from a jurisprudential point of view, these two types of seller are not referred to as "hesitant person". According to the popular opinion and even the consensus of jurists, the sale of a "hesitant person" is invalid. On the other hand, another opinion that has been approved by some jurists is the correctness of this type of sale and its carrying over to the whole of a certain state. This research, using analytical methods and library tools, seeks to investigate this issue in jurisprudential works and confirm the theory that supports the validity of such a transaction.

One of the essential aspects of worship, such as daily prayers, is achieving and maintaining purity (taharah). This issue poses a challenge for individuals who suffer from involuntary urinary or fecal incontinence. Some jurists believe that if impurity (hadath) occurs two or three times during prayer, it is obligatory to renew the state of purity during the prayer. Their solution suggests keeping a container of water close to the worshipper, so they can perform ablution (wudu) promptly after involuntary discharge. This research employs a descriptive-analytical methodology, utilizing documentary sources to revisit the arguments supporting this ruling. After categorizing these arguments, the ensuing debates and challenges related to these reasons are elucidated. The result indicates that the ruling lacks solidity based on three factors: the insufficiency of explicit textual evidence supporting the ruling, the existence of conflicting narrations on the subject, and the presence of evidence suggesting the sufficiency of the initial ablution for individuals with partial impurity. It appears that the ruling favoring the adequacy of the initial ablution for these individuals is more plausible.

Option belongs to the category of rights, not obligations, and therefore it can be terminated. The notion of terminating an option before the contract refers to eliminating the cause and necessity of the option right, rather than nullifying it after its creation. There is uncertainty regarding the capability of stipulating the termination of an option before the contract in Imami jurisprudence and Iranian positive law. The stipulation for the termination of an option before the contract may take the form of a separate agreement regarding the option, an independent condition concerning the option, or even an incidental provision other than the contract that includes the option right. Based on the findings of the present descriptive-analytical study, considering the evolved jurisprudential developments, it is possible and acceptable to stipulate the termination of an option before the contract in each of the aforementioned forms in Imami jurisprudence and Iranian law. However, the existing civil law regulations in this regard are incomplete and ineffective, and their modification, from the perspective of a general definition of conditions that also encompasses pre-contractual conditions, the acceptance of the stipulation for the termination of the option before the contract, the expression of various forms of its legal implications, and ultimately the determination of essential instances of options, is necessary.

Futures contracts (in the form of gold and currency) have provided a modern tool for production and profit-making for traders, becoming a crucial foundation in financial markets. However, the legal and Sharia rulings regarding these transactions have been ambiguous, with some cases falling under fraudulent practices or the acquisition of unlawful wealth. The legal-fiqhi analysis of this subject has lacked a comprehensive background, and no solutions have been proposed to overcome the Sharia obstacles. The innovation of this paper lies in its descriptive-analytical approach, which examines and critiques evidence, determines the legal and Fiqhi position of these transactions, and strengthens the arguments against their gambling nature, speculation, and illegality. Additionally, the paper emphasizes the requirement for the validity of these contracts, which is the presence of genuine and serious intention in the transaction, along with its occurrence in the form of a peace agreement and the genuine intent of both parties in the negotiation. Another objective of this article is to propose a guarantee mechanism for the criminal and legal enforcement of exiting such transactions from the domain of Sharia and law.

According to general principles and references to valid verses and narrations, tooth, like other human body parts, is subject to retribution. However, there is a dispute among scholars of the Imami sect regarding the ruling on retribution for tooth fracture. They can be divided into three groups: some believe in the permissibility of retribution for tooth fracture, some believe it is not permissible, and some remain silent on the issue. In 2013, the legislator of the Islamic Republic of Iran accepted the theory of permissibility of retribution in Article 412 of the Penal Code. The proponents of permissibility rely on evidence from Quranic verses (Al-Baqarah, 194) and some narrations. After examining the presented evidence, this paper concludes that the reliance of proponents on the permissibility of retribution is comprehensive, whether it is specifically or generally related to the tooth, as it does not meet the conditions for exemption from retribution under the principle of non-retribution for bones. Although the implementation of retribution is subject to the absence of other obstacles, this paper, by examining the general principles and references in the issue, proves the accepted viewpoint in Islamic Penal Law regarding retribution.