پژوهشنامه حقوق اسلامی
پیاپی 62 (زمستان 1402)

In the realm of legal interpretation, the application of "literal principles" has long been considered a cornerstone for deciphering the intentions behind legal texts. These principles serve as tools to uncover the intended meaning of the speaker or writer, particularly in cases where the text carries legal ramifications. However, the efficacy of literal principles comes under scrutiny when texts are composed by multiple individuals with varying intentions. This complexity is especially pronounced in legislative texts and contracts, where the confluence of different wills complicates the attribution of meaning solely through literal interpretation. Moreover, the imposition of "legal principles" concerning justice and fairness can further complicate the application of literal principles in legislative contexts, potentially hindering their efficacy. This article delves into the nuanced interplay between literal and legal principles in legal interpretation, aiming to elucidate the challenges posed by multiple intentions in textual composition and the implications for maintaining the integrity of legal systems.

Research Question:

The main question of this paper is how do literal principles of interpretation fare in discerning legislative intent when confronted with texts shaped by multiple intentions, and how do legal principles intersect with and potentially impede the application of literal principles?

Research Hypothesis:

We hypothesize that the efficacy of literal principles in uncovering legislative intent diminishes when texts are composed by multiple individuals, each with divergent intentions. Additionally, we posit that the imposition of legal principles, particularly those pertaining to justice and fairness, may serve as barriers to the application of literal principles in legislative interpretation.

Methodology & Framework, if Applicable:

The methodology employed in this study utilizes a doctrinal approach, focusing on the works of Islamic jurists and legal scholars to critically analyze their perspectives on the interplay between literal and legal principles in legal interpretation. Through a comparative examination of diverse opinions within the legal discourse, we aim to elucidate the complexities inherent in attributing meaning to legislative texts and navigating the tensions between literal and legal principles. This analysis is framed within the context of both parliamentary laws and contract interpretation, offering insights into the practical implications of the theoretical discussion on legal interpretation.

The examination of literal principles in the context of legal interpretation unveils several key findings and prompts nuanced discussions. Firstly, the pillars upon which literal principles rest—namely, the principle of non-precedent [Asl-e Adam-e Gharineh], doctrine of ordinary meaning [Asalat al-Zuhoor], and doctrine of literal meaning [Asalat al-Haghighah]—underscore the normative nature of these tools. While literal principles are instrumental in attributing semantic meaning to speakers, their efficacy is contingent upon the existence of an intended meaning and doubts surrounding it. However, in scenarios involving texts shaped by multiple intentions, such as contractual agreements and legislative enactments, the presumption of a unified intention underlying the text becomes tenuous. This challenges the applicability of literal principles in uncovering legislative intent, as the integrity of the legal system takes precedence over individual intentions.
     The interplay between literal and legal principles further complicates the landscape of legal interpretation. While literal principles aim to discern the speaker's intention, legal principles—rooted in justice, fairness, and the overarching integrity of the legal system—may impose constraints on the application of literal interpretation. Particularly in the realm of parliamentary laws, where texts embody the collective will of multiple representatives, safeguarding the integrity of the legal system necessitates prioritizing legal principles over the pursuit of individual intentions. Thus, the application of literal principles must be tempered by the overarching framework of legal principles to ensure coherence and fidelity to the underlying ethos of the legal system.
     Moreover, the tension between literal and legal principles underscores the dynamic nature of legal interpretation, which requires a delicate balance between textual fidelity and contextual considerations. While literal principles offer a structured approach to uncovering meaning, their limitations become apparent in contexts characterized by multifaceted intentions and divergent interpretations. In such scenarios, a holistic approach that integrates both literal and legal principles emerges as imperative to navigate the complexities of legal interpretation and uphold the integrity of the legal system.

In conclusion, the examination of literal and legal principles in legal interpretation elucidates the intricate dynamics at play in attributing meaning to legal texts. While literal principles serve as valuable tools for discerning the speaker's intention, their efficacy is contingent upon the existence of a unified intention underlying the text. In cases involving texts shaped by multiple intentions, such as legislative enactments and contractual agreements, the applicability of literal principles becomes fraught with challenges. Moreover, the imposition of legal principles, rooted in the overarching integrity of the legal system, may constrain the application of literal interpretation. Consequently, a nuanced approach that balances literal and legal principles is essential to navigate the complexities of legal interpretation and safeguard the integrity of the legal system. By integrating both approaches, legal interpreters can uphold coherence and fidelity to the underlying ethos of the legal system, ensuring equitable outcomes and fostering trust in the administration of justice.

The foundational stability of any society is significantly anchored in the presence and enforcement of laws. The enactment of laws, a primary responsibility of governance, ensures that societal relationships are regulated based on fairness and justice, thereby securing societal continuity and stability. The constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran entrusts the Islamic Consultative Assembly with the authority to enact ordinary laws, emphasizing the legislature's monopoly over legislation. This exclusive right entails not only the privilege to legislate but also the duty to do so, ensuring that the legislative needs of society are met. In instances where the legislative body fails to fulfill its mandate, whether due to internal disagreements or conflicts of interest, it raises a pivotal question about the role of leadership, specifically the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist [Vali-ye Faqih], in addressing legislative voids and guaranteeing citizens' rights to an efficient legislative system. This paper delves into the constitutional frameworks within Iran that enable leadership intervention in legislative processes, aiming to explore the mechanisms through which leadership can address the absence of necessary legislation and its implications on societal stability.

Research Question:

The central inquiry of this study revolves around the role of leadership, particularly the legal personality of the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist, in filling the void created by legislative inaction within the Islamic Republic of Iran. Specifically, the research seeks to answer: "How can the leadership institution, under the current constitutional framework of the Islamic Republic of Iran, ensure the right of citizens to benefit from an efficient legislative power, particularly in situations where the legislative body fails to enact necessary legislation, leading to a legal vacuum?"

Research Hypothesis:

The hypothesis posited in this research is that the leadership in Iran, especially embodied by the guardianship, possesses the constitutional authority and mechanisms to effectively address and fill legislative voids. This capability is critical in situations where the legislative body is incapacitated by internal disagreements, conflicts of interest, or procedural inefficiencies. The leadership's intervention, as hypothesized, is not only constitutionally sanctioned but is also a necessary mechanism for safeguarding the citizens' right to an efficient legislative system and maintaining societal stability in the face of legislative inaction.

Methodology & Framework, if Applicable:

The research adopts a descriptive-analytical methodology, drawing upon a thorough review of the constitutional law of Iran and extensive library research. This study focuses on elucidating the constitutional basis that mandates the leadership's involvement in legislative processes, particularly analyzing articles 57 and 110 of the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Through this analytical framework, the research aims to identify the competencies of the leadership in ensuring the enactment of necessary legislation and securing citizens' rights against legislative inefficiencies. The study's approach is distinguished by its emphasis on the "timeliness" of law enactment, prioritizing the prevention of legal vacuums over the qualitative aspects of the legislation. This methodology facilitates a comprehensive understanding of the leadership's role in crisis resolution and the establishment of a legal mechanism to address legislative voids.

The analysis reveals that the leadership within the Islamic Republic of Iran plays a pivotal role in addressing legislative inefficiencies and ensuring the citizens' right to an effective legislative system. The study highlights that the constitution grants the Guardian Jurist, significant powers to intervene when the legislative assembly fails to meet the legislative needs of society. These powers are rooted in various constitutional provisions, notably Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8 of Article 110, which collectively empower the leadership to supervise the proper execution of policies, issue referenda decrees, resolve disputes between powers, and address systemic problems. This constitutional framework enables the leadership to act decisively in instances of legislative deadlock or legal vacuum, thereby preventing harm to society and ensuring the continuity of governance.
     The research underscores the leadership's authority to issue state decrees [Hokm-e Hukoomati] as an exceptional measure to fill legislative voids. These decrees, while potentially lacking in the quality and technicality of laws enacted through the ordinary legislative process, serve as a necessary intervention to address immediate legislative needs and safeguard public interests.

The study concludes that the leadership in the Islamic Republic of Iran, by virtue of its constitutional mandate, possesses the necessary competencies to address legislative inefficiencies and ensure the protection of citizens' rights to an efficient legislative system. The constitution provides a robust framework for leadership intervention in cases where the legislative assembly fails to fulfill its legislative duties, offering various mechanisms for resolving legal vacuums and preventing societal harm. The leadership's role, as defined by the Constitution, is essential in maintaining the stability and continuity of the legal system, particularly in ensuring that the legislative needs of society are met in a timely and effective manner.
     The unique competencies granted to the leadership, including the authority to issue state decrees [Hokm-e Hukoomati] and direct legislative action, highlight the Iranian legal system's innovative approach to safeguarding public rights and addressing legislative voids. This extraordinary framework ensures that the risk of infringing citizens' fundamental rights due to legislative inefficiency is minimized. The leadership institution, with its comprehensive constitutional powers, emerges as a critical mechanism for guaranteeing public rights and facilitating effective governance, thereby affirming its unique position within the Iranian legal and constitutional order.

The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has recognized the impending demographic shift within its 57 member states, particularly concerning the aging population. Despite numerous international initiatives addressing demographic changes, the legal capacities within Islamic teachings regarding the rights of the elderly remain underexplored in international documentation. This extended abstract explores the unacknowledged Islamic legal capacities within the OIC's strategy on the elderly, shedding light on the neglected aspects of Islamic jurisprudence in addressing aging populations.

Research Question:

This study seeks to investigate whether the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, as a religious entity, has effectively incorporated Islamic legal values into its strategy on the elderly. It aims to discern the extent to which Islamic legal principles are reflected in the documentation, highlighting any discrepancies between religious teachings and international policy frameworks.

Research Hypothesis:

It is hypothesized that while the OIC's strategy on the elderly may demonstrate recognition of the importance of addressing aging populations, there may be a gap in the integration of Islamic legal principles into the documentation. The hypothesis suggests that the OIC's strategy may not fully capitalize on the rich heritage of Islamic jurisprudence concerning the rights and protections afforded to the elderly.

Methodology & Framework, if Applicable:

Utilizing an analytical and descriptive approach, this study examines the OIC's strategy on the elderly, focusing on the foundational instrument approved in 2020. The methodology involves a comprehensive review and analysis of the text, with particular attention to the incorporation of Islamic legal principles. The framework for analysis encompasses several key aspects: the position of religious elements in documentation, the utilization of non-religious discourse, the convergence of member states' legislation on elderly rights, the role of women and family, and the introduction of new terminologies. These components provide a structured framework for evaluating the extent to which Islamic legal capacities are acknowledged and integrated within the OIC's strategy on the elderly.
     In the subsequent sections of this extended abstract, the study will delve deeper into each aspect of the framework, offering critical insights into the documentation and its alignment with Islamic legal principles. The analysis aims to contribute to a better understanding of the intersection between religious values and international policy initiatives concerning aging populations within Islamic societies.

The analysis of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation's strategy on the elderly reveals several noteworthy findings and prompts critical discussion regarding the integration of Islamic legal principles, the focus on financial matters, and the representation of women and family within the instrument.
     The results indicate that while the strategy demonstrates timely recognition of population aging in Islamic societies, it falls short in substantively incorporating Islamic legal values. The instrument primarily emphasizes financial aspects and resource allocation, neglecting to establish qualitative criteria based on Sharia for addressing elderly rights. This raises questions about the extent to which the instrument reflects the unique legal heritage of Islamic societies and distinguishes itself from other international frameworks.
     Furthermore, the discussion highlights the instrument’s approach to representing women and family within the context of elderly issues. While there is some attempt to deviate from state-centric obligations and acknowledge the role of women and family, the instrument’s treatment remains limited. This raises broader questions about the intersectionality of gender, family dynamics, and elderly rights within Islamic legal frameworks and international policy discourse.
     Additionally, the analysis identifies shortcomings in the instrument’s utilization of innovative terminologies and legal convergence. The absence of an approach rooted in the realities of Islamic societies regarding labor rights and social security underscores the need for a more nuanced understanding of Islamic jurisprudence in addressing aging populations.

In conclusion, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation's strategy on the elderly represents a significant step towards addressing the challenges posed by population aging in Islamic societies. However, the instrument falls short of fully capitalizing on Islamic legal capacities, particularly in establishing qualitative criteria based on Sharia for elderly rights. The absence of substantive values and the limited representation of women and family highlight areas for improvement in future iterations of the strategy.
     The conclusion emphasizes the importance of incorporating national and religious culture into legal frameworks related to the elderly, as seen in the case of Iran. By aligning laws and instruments with Islamic principles, there is an opportunity to not only address domestic needs but also serve as a legislative model for other Islamic countries. Furthermore, the inclusion of innovative terminologies and a forward-looking understanding of Sharia can influence global discourse on elderly rights, extending beyond Islamic states.
     In essence, the critique and evaluation of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation's strategy on the elderly underscore the ongoing dialogue between national and international legal levels and the imperative of integrating Islamic legal principles into contemporary policy frameworks.

The modern democratic framework is underpinned by the concept of representation, particularly within the realm of public finance. Central to this concept is the principle that any imposition of taxation must be sanctioned by the representatives of the people, establishing a foundation for governmental accountability in financial and budgetary matters to the parliament. The role of parliamentary oversight, executed by supervisory organizations like the "National Supreme Audit Institutions," is pivotal in ensuring transparency and adherence to financial regulations. This study aims to unravel the intricate relationship between the theoretical foundations and practical procedures that delineate the jurisdiction of the Iranian Supreme Audit Court of Iran, tracing its historical origins and examining its evolution through legislative procedures.

Research Question:

This research endeavors to address a fundamental question: what are the challenges and requirements constraining the Supreme Audit Court's oversight of the government's financial performance in the current legal system of Iran? By scrutinizing the legal constraints imposed on the court since the Iranian Constitutional Revolution [Asr-e-Mashrooteh] and exploring their impact on the Court's goals post the Islamic Revolution, this study seeks to uncover the nuanced dynamics shaping the institution's jurisdiction.

Research Hypothesis:

The research is grounded in the hypothesis that misunderstandings inherited from the Constitutional Era regarding the functions and duties of the Supreme Audit Court, coupled with the post-revolutionary Constitutional Council's inability to rectify these misconceptions, have resulted in the exclusion of a significant portion of public treasury resources from the Court's oversight. This exclusion has relegated financial supervision to the considerations of the national budget. The overarching hypothesis posits that a comprehensive oversight role for the Supreme Audit Court over the entire public treasury is an imperative that has been neglected.

Methodology & Framework, if Applicable:

The methodology employed in this research is primarily descriptive-analytical. Drawing on extensive library documents, legal texts, and scientific and legal procedures, the study meticulously examines the evolution of the Supreme Audit Court's jurisdiction from its establishment to the present. A thorough exploration of legislative procedures, both constitional and ordinary, is undertaken to unravel ambiguities and challenges in depicting the relationship between the Court's goals and the obligation of audited institutions. The framework of analysis is rooted in the examination of intellectual-legal backgrounds, with a focus on understanding the theoretical foundations and practical procedures that have shaped the court's jurisdiction.
     The study aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the challenges and limitations faced by the Supreme Audit Court in its financial oversight activities. Notably, it seeks to identify essential requirements governing the court's jurisdiction and evaluate the impact of historical legal constraints on its ability to achieve the lofty goals envisioned by the framers of the Persian Constitutional Amendment of 1907 and the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
     We will delve into the detailed results and discussions of the research findings, followed by a conclusive synthesis of the identified challenges and potential avenues for reform within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Audit Court of Iran.

The historical trajectory of the Supreme Audit Court of Iran reveals a complex evolution marked by significant jurisdictional fluctuations. Established under the principles (101) and (103) of the Persian Constitutional Amendment of 1907, the Court initially operated under the supervision of the Ministry of Finance. However, the lack of expertise among its founders, coupled with inadequate awareness and the influence of translated texts and Western models, resulted in inefficiencies. Notably, the Court's supervisory position over the government's financial affairs was transferred to the internal auditor of the executive branch in the 1352 SH amendments to the Audit Court Law. The inefficiencies persisted due to the absence of systematic accountability and regular financial management responsiveness by the political-administrative currents of the time.
     Post the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1357 SH, the Court's fundamental role as the guardian of the public treasury was preserved within the Islamic framework. However, deficiencies in the regulatory text of Article (55) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran hindered the complete establishment of the Court's role. Challenges emerged, including the interpretative theory of the Guardian Council, leading to the exclusion of a significant portion of the public treasury's financial resources from the Court's oversight.
     Despite interpretative theories, it is argued that the term "approved credits" mentioned in Article (55) may be confined to the overall national budget, but limiting the jurisdiction of the Supreme Audit Court in addressing these matters is deemed unacceptable. This potential limitation not only casts doubt on the legal functions of the Court but fundamentally challenges its legal personality in safeguarding the public treasury. The conflict between constitutional principles and provisions of current Audit Court laws raises substantial concerns regarding the Court's ability to fulfill its supervisory role effectively.

The journey of the Supreme Audit Court of Iran reflects the intricate interplay between historical developments, constitutional principles, and evolving legislative frameworks. While the Court's establishment aimed to be an independent and comprehensive supervisor of the country's income and expenditure, its early inefficiencies, rooted in a lack of expertise and awareness, led to jurisdictional adjustments over time. The post-revolution preservation of the Court's role as the guardian of the public treasury encountered challenges due to deficiencies in the constitutional text.
     The research underscores the need for clarity and precision in delineating the foundations and limits of the audit jurisdiction of the Supreme Audit Court. The recommendation is put forth that Article (55) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran be revised, transferring these matters to ordinary law. This move, it is argued, will enable a more specialized, detailed, and non-constitutional approach to defining the Court's audit jurisdiction. Such a step is imperative to address the identified challenges, ensuring the Court can effectively fulfill its role as a vital safeguard of the public treasury within the evolving legal landscape of Iran.

In the rapidly evolving landscape of digital technology, the emergence of blockchain and cryptocurrencies has presented new challenges and questions for religious jurisprudence. Among these, the practice of cryptocurrency mining has sparked debates concerning its conformity with Islamic laws, particularly in light of similarities drawn between mining activities and gambling [Ghomar] — a concept well-defined and often condemned in Islamic teachings. This paper aims to explore the intricate dynamics of cryptocurrency mining within the framework of Imamia Jurisprudence, scrutinizing whether the practice bears the hallmarks of gambling, as traditionally understood within the Sharia. Given the profound impact of digital currencies on global financial systems and the ethical considerations they raise, this investigation seeks to elucidate the religious standings on cryptocurrency mining, thereby guiding adherents in their engagement with this modern financial phenomenon.

Research Question:

The core inquiry of this study revolves around the assessment of cryptocurrency mining through the lens of Imamia Jurisprudence: "Does the process of cryptocurrency mining align with the characteristics of gambling as defined by Islamic law, thereby rendering it prohibited. This question seeks to unravel the ethical and religious implications of mining activities, which involve significant financial investment in competition for a potentially lucrative reward, mirroring aspects of chance and speculation akin to gambling.

Research Hypothesis:

This paper hypothesizes that despite superficial similarities between cryptocurrency mining and gambling—such as the reliance on chance, competitive investment, and the potential for monetary gain without traditional labor—there are fundamental differences that could distinguish mining activities from gambling under Imamia Jurisprudence. These differences hinge on the intentions behind mining, the nature of effort and investment involved, and the broader economic implications of cryptocurrency within Islamic ethical frameworks. The hypothesis posits that a nuanced understanding of these factors may reveal that cryptocurrency mining does not inherently constitute gambling and thus may not be universally deemed haram within an Islamic context.

Methodology & Framework, if Applicable:

To address the research question and test the hypothesis, this study adopts a descriptive analytical methodology, underpinned by a qualitative framework that involves the examination of primary and secondary sources within Islamic jurisprudence. The research will delve into the canonical texts, fatwas, and scholarly interpretations that define gambling from an Imamia perspective, subsequently applying these criteria to the process of cryptocurrency mining. Through comparative analysis, the study will identify the parallels and distinctions between mining and gambling, considering factors such as the element of risk, the role of skill versus chance, and the societal and economic contributions of cryptocurrency mining. This methodological approach allows for a comprehensive assessment of the subject matter, grounded in the rich tradition of Islamic legal scholarship while engaging with the contemporary implications of digital finance.

The research meticulously dissected the characteristics traditionally associated with gambling within Islamic jurisprudence and juxtaposed these with the intrinsic elements of cryptocurrency mining. This comparative analysis yielded several critical insights, underscoring the distinct nature of cryptocurrency mining from gambling. Key findings include:     Rational benefit and ecosystem contribution: cryptocurrency mining was found to offer tangible benefits to the digital currency ecosystem, enhancing security and facilitating transactions. This utility and contribution render it distinct from gambling activities, which lack productive output or societal benefit.
     Nature of rewards: unlike gambling, where stakes are placed with the possibility of total loss or gain based on chance, cryptocurrency mining rewards are not predicated on the loss of another but are rewards for computational efforts contributed to the network.
     Financial risk and effort: the research clarified that the financial investment in mining does not equate to wagering since it involves expenditure towards productive work with inherent value, differentiating it from the speculative risk in gambling.
     Competition and intent: the competitive aspect of mining does not inherently signify gambling, as it lacks the direct adversarial win-lose scenario typical of gambling. Instead, mining competition is more akin to market competition, where success does not necessitate another's loss.
     Investment and loss: the argument that miners face a total loss in the absence of rewards was countered by the understanding that investments in mining infrastructure and operations constitute business expenses rather than gambles, with inherent value and potential for future gains.
     Chance versus effort: The role of chance in mining does not align with the gambling criterion of reliance on pure luck, as mining involves significant preparatory effort, investment, and an ongoing contribution to network maintenance.
     These findings collectively argue against the classification of cryptocurrency mining as gambling within the framework of Imamia Jurisprudence, highlighting the nuanced understanding required to evaluate modern financial technologies through the lens of traditional religious law.

The exhaustive investigation into the parallels between gambling characteristics and cryptocurrency mining concluded a significant divergence between the two under Imamia Jurisprudence. The research established that cryptocurrency mining does not embody the essential elements of gambling, namely, reliance on chance, direct financial wagering, and lack of productive contribution. Instead, mining is characterized by its integral role in the maintenance and security of the blockchain network, necessitating significant effort, investment, and skill.
     However, the conclusion that mining does not equate to gambling does not automatically confer legitimacy on all aspects of cryptocurrency operations within an Islamic context. The research underscores the need for further scholarly examination on other concerns related to cryptocurrency, such as the legitimacy of earnings and the intrinsic value of digital currencies.
     In essence, this study not only clarifies the position of cryptocurrency mining in relation to gambling within Imamia Jurisprudence but also opens avenues for further research into the broader ethical and economic implications of cryptocurrencies. It serves as a foundational piece for ongoing dialogue and exploration in the intersection of technology, finance, and religious ethics, emphasizing the importance of informed, nuanced scholarship in addressing contemporary issues through the lens of traditional jurisprudence.

The balance of economic interests in contractual agreements is a pivotal concern across legal systems worldwide. In Islamic jurisprudence, particularly within the context of exchange conditions in sale contracts, the no-harm principle [Nafy-e Gharar] stands out as a crucial rule to maintain this balance. Despite the absence of an explicit reference in Iran's Civil Law, certain provisions reflect the principle's influence on transactional and contractual terms. This paper embarks on a comprehensive exploration of the "principle of necessity to remove ambiguity" in contractual terms, a topic that, despite previous scholarly attention, lacks a systematic and in-depth examination. The prevalent ambiguity in applying the No-harm principle across various contractual realms has led to divergent interpretations and a need for clearer guidelines. Our investigation delves into the role of ambiguity in contractual terms under Islamic jurisprudence and Iranian law, aiming to unravel the legal implications of No-harm and propose refinements to existing legislative frameworks.

Research Question:

The core inquiry of this article revolves around the legal ramifications of ambiguity in contractual terms within the realms of Islamic jurisprudence and Iranian civil law. Specifically, it seeks to understand how such ambiguity influences the creation of risk in transactions and the extent to which the "principle of necessity to remove ambiguity" is applied in mitigating these effects. This question is pivotal for clarifying the legal status of ambiguous conditions and their potential to nullify contracts deemed risk.

Research Hypothesis:

The hypothesis posits that a comprehensive application of the "principle of necessity to remove ambiguity" significantly mitigates the risk of risk in contracts by clarifying conditions that could otherwise lead to economic imbalance between parties. This clarification process is essential for ensuring the validity and enforceability of contracts, particularly in the dynamic context of modern economic and commercial transactions where speed and efficiency often prioritize over detailed negotiations of contract conditions.

Methodology & Framework, if Applicable:

This study adopts an analytical and doctrinal methodology, grounding its analysis in the primary sources of Imamia jurisprudence and the provisions of Iranian civil law. By scrutinizing the nature of risk and its implications on contractual terms, the research systematically explores the potential for ambiguity to create risk. It further examines the scope of risk creation within contractual terms, considering their secondary and dependent nature in contractual agreements. The analysis is structured around a critical examination of Iranian Civil Law Articles 232 and 233, which deal with unknown conditions within contracts. Through this lens, the study aims to elucidate how the unknown nature of a condition impacts the contract's overall unknown nature, thereby affecting its validity. The doctrinal framework provides a solid foundation for proposing legislative amendments to better address and reduce the ambiguities related to contractual terms, thereby minimizing the risk of nullity in uncertain contractions.
     By investigating these dimensions, the article contributes to understanding of the legal challenges posed by ambiguous contract conditions. It seeks to offer a nuanced analysis that bridges the gap between traditional jurisprudential approaches and the practical needs of modern contractual practices, emphasizing the importance of clarity and precision in contract formation to prevent economic disparities and ensure contractual fairness. Through this exploration, the study underscores the critical role of the "Principle of Necessity to Eliminate Ambiguity" in safeguarding the integrity of contractual agreements and promoting a more stable and predictable legal environment for economic actors.

The exploration of transactional ambiguities within the framework of Islamic jurisprudence and Iranian civil law has yielded significant insights into the mechanisms through which risk (or uncertainty) is generated in contracts. A nuanced understanding of risk emerges, positioning it not as a strictly legal or religious concept but as one deeply rooted in customary practices. This customary basis underscores the importance of contextual interpretation, where not all forms of ignorance are deemed risky, but rather, significant potential harm as recognized by custom is essential for deeming an ambiguity as contributing to uncertainty.
     A critical distinction is drawn between different types of conditions within a contract, highlighting the unique treatment of the "condition of quality" [Shart-e Sefat] which is inherently tied to the contract's subject matter, as opposed to other conditions that, while independent, serve a subordinate and ancillary role. This delineation is crucial for understanding the application of the Eqtefar Principle in Islamic jurisprudence and Iranian law, which permits overlooking certain ambiguities in contract conditions based on their nature and the economic insignificance attributed to them by the contracting parties.
     The research meticulously details the conditions under which ambiguities in contract conditions may or may not lead to uncertainty. It is articulated that the potential for risk arises primarily from absolute ignorance in conditions that disrupt their execution, posing a dispute risk. However, the application of the Eqtefar Principle mitigates this risk, provided specific criteria are met, emphasizing the condition's ancillary nature and its alignment with the contract's main subject. This principle's application is contingent upon clear contractual content and the economic significance of the condition, which, if unclear, may elevate the condition to a status equivalent to the contract's subject, thereby increasing the risk of uncertainty.

The research culminates in understanding of the relationship between transactional ambiguities and the creation of uncertainty in contracts. It delineates the customary foundation of risk, emphasizing the need for a significant potential for harm to constitute a risk. The analysis distinguishes between conditions directly related to the contract's subject and those ancillary to it, revealing the nuanced application of the Eqtefar Principle in forgiving ambiguities in contract conditions based on their subordinate nature and economic insignificance.
     A pivotal finding of this study is the conditional nature of ambiguity's impact on uncertainty, predicated on the execution feasibility of the condition and the clarity of the contractual content regarding the condition's economic significance. The research underscores that only under specific circumstances does ambiguity in conditions not affect the contract's legal status, thereby preventing risk. Conversely, when conditions are fundamental to the contract's subject or when ambiguity renders the contract's subject unknown, the risk of uncertainty is significantly heightened, potentially leading to contract nullification.
     This exploration offers valuable legal insights and practical implications for drafting contracts within Islamic jurisprudence and Iranian law contexts. It highlights the importance of clarity in contract conditions and the careful consideration of conditions' roles and significances to mitigate the risk of uncertainty. The findings provide a foundation for future legal research and practice, emphasizing the need for precision and awareness of customary interpretations in contract formation and execution.

The complex interplay between Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh) and law in Iranian society, particularly since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, has sparked intense debates among intellectuals. In navigating legislative impasses within the legal system of the Islamic Republic of Iran, understanding the historical evolution and essence of concepts related to Sharia and law becomes paramount. The historical study of the relationship between these two institutions is integral to comprehending the trajectory of Iranian law and the evolution of Imamia jurisprudence.
     The focus of this study revolves around the perspectives of Sheikh Fazlollah Nuri (1843-1909) and Mirza-ye Naini (Muhammad Hussain Naini) (1860-1936), two pivotal jurists during the Iranian Constitutional Revolution [Asr-e-Mashrooteh] in Iran. Positioned on opposite ends of the Sharia-oriented intellectual spectrum, Sheikh Fazlollah Nuri represents those who question the legitimacy of law, while Mirza-ye Naini embodies those who acknowledge the necessity of law within the framework of Sharia. The uniqueness of this exploration lies in dissecting the assumptions these jurists held regarding Sharia and law, shedding light on the mental constructions that shaped their perspectives.

Research Question:

This research aims to delve into the theories of Sheikh Fazlollah Nuri and Allameh Naini, unraveling their assumptions regarding the concepts of "Sharia" and "Law." The central questions guiding this study include: What are the nuanced readings of Sheikh Fazlollah Nuri and Allameh Naini concerning the institutions of 'Sharia' and 'Law'? How do these readings contribute to conceptualizing the relationship between these two institutions in their views?

Research Hypothesis:

Formulating a comprehensive understanding of the assumptions held by Sheikh Fazlollah Nuri and Mirza-ye Naini regarding Sharia and law requires a nuanced exploration of their respective intellectual frameworks. The hypothesis posited is that Sheikh Fazlollah Nuri, as a representative of the spectrum questioning the legitimacy of law, might emphasize the precedence and superiority of Sharia over legal constructs. On the other hand, Mirza-ye Naini, as a proponent of acknowledging the role of law, is likely to present a perspective that harmonizes the two institutions.

Methodology & Framework, if Applicable:

To address the research questions and test the hypothesis, a componential approach will be employed. Unlike the traditional flow analysis approach, which tends to be reductionist, the componential approach allows for the identification of distinct thoughts and their conflicts within the intellectual frameworks of Sheikh Fazlollah Nuri and Mirza-ye Naini. This method acknowledges the possibility of individuals belonging to multiple thought components rather than being confined to a single flow.
     The study will critically examine existing literature, focusing on the methodologies adopted by previous researchers who have explored the opinions of Constitutional Sharia-oriented individuals. This research distinguishes itself by proposing a new framework that offers a deeper understanding of the relationships between Sharia and law based on the intellectual contributions of Sheikh Fazlollah Nuri and Mirza-ye Naini.
     In the subsequent sections, the article will scrutinize the scope of Sharia as perceived by these jurists, addressing the ongoing debate regarding whether the differences among Sharia-oriented individuals are fundamental or minor. Additionally, a positive exploration of the concept of law for Sheikh Fazlollah Nuri and Mirza-ye Naini will be presented, shedding light on the divergent yet interconnected perspectives of these two influential figures during the Iranian Constitutional Revolution.

Interpretation of the Scope of Sharia: An in-depth analysis of Sheikh Fazlollah Nuri and Mirza-ye Naini's perspectives on the scope of Sharia reveals a nuanced understanding that challenges conventional interpretations. While initial comparisons suggest conflicts, the shared foundations of Imamia jurisprudence among these jurists blur the lines of contention. The assertion that Sheikh Fazlollah Nuri holds a maximalist view of Sharia, contrasting with Mirza-ye Naini's minimalist stance due to the separation of customary and Sharia jurisdictions, lacks substantial evidence. The semantic differences between these two jurists regarding the scope of Sharia appear to be minimal, indicating a convergence in their interpretation of Sharia's principles.
     Conceptualization of Law as the Locus of Conflict: The crux of the divergence between Sheikh Fazlollah Nuri and Mirza-ye Naini lies in their conceptualization of law (Codified Law). Sheikh Fazlollah Nuri perceives law as a substantial, comprehensive entity that contradicts Sharia, leading him to reject the law as a modern concept. His viewpoint aligns with the broader understanding of the "incompatibility between Sharia and law" ideology. In stark contrast, Mirza-ye Naini integrates the law into traditional societal structures, viewing it as consistent with Sharia and not a separate, non-religious entity. His perspective positions the law as a formal interpretation reflecting religious rulings in the legal domain, highlighting a compatibility between Sharia and law.

This research sought to reevaluate the theories of Sheikh Fazlollah Nuri and Mirza-ye Naini regarding Sharia and law during the Constitutional Era in Iran. The examination focused on two crucial aspects: the interpretation of the scope of Sharia and the conceptualization of the law. Within the ideological backdrop of the era, the study positioned the opinions of these two jurists under the overarching ideologies of "incompatibility between jurisprudence and law," "Sharia-oriented thinking," and "collectivism."
     Regarding the interpretation of the scope of Sharia, the research found that semantic differences between Sheikh Fazlollah Nuri and Mirza-ye Naini were minimal, challenging the commonly held belief of maximalist and minimalist views. Both jurists, rooted in Imamia jurisprudence, shared foundational principles of Sharia, mitigating potential conflicts in their interpretations.
     The conceptualization of law emerged as the focal point of disagreement between the two jurists. Sheikh Fazlollah Nuri rejected the law as a modern, comprehensive entity incompatible with Sharia, aligning with the broader narrative of incompatibility. In contrast, Mirza-ye Naini perceived the law as an integral part of traditional societies, deeming it consistent with Sharia and serving as an expression of religious rulings in the legal domain.
     In essence, while Sheikh Fazlollah Nuri and Mirza-ye Naini both identified as Sharia-oriented thinkers, their divergence lay in their understanding of the law. Sheikh Fazlollah Nuri's rejection of the law paralleled the incompatibility ideology, while Mirza-ye Naini's integration of the law within religious frameworks resonated with the collectivist perspective. This nuanced exploration contributes to a more nuanced understanding of the intellectual landscape during the Constitutional Era in Iran, shedding light on the intricate relationship between Sharia and law as perceived by these influential jurists.

The prevention of pollution, particularly stemming from the oil and gas industry, stands as a pivotal measure in safeguarding the environment from irreparable damage. At its core, prevention acts as a formidable barrier against the creation of existing hazards, with a primary objective of preserving the environment. Recognizing its significance, international environmental law defines the principle of prevention as not only averting the occurrence of environmental hazards but also mandating actions that mitigate harm in the event of their occurrence. The intricate interconnection of the prevention principle with other environmental tenets, including the precautionary principle, principle of sovereignty, conservation-use, no-harm principle, principle of cooperation, environmental protection, and sustainable development, underscores its centrality in the global efforts toward environmental preservation.
     The repercussions of oil pollution, a subset of environmental pollution, are substantial, inflicting irreversible damage on ecosystems and living organisms. Given the transboundary nature of oil pollution, the international community has been prompted to establish a framework of regulations aimed at preventing and mitigating such pollution. This research delves into the importance of pollution prevention, examining the incorporation of this principle in both international and Iranian legal systems. The subsequent sections delve into the standards, principles, and the level of emphasis given to prevention in international and domestic laws and regulations related to the oil and gas sector.

Research Question:

This study seeks to address the following central question: to what extent do the Iranian legal system and international legal instruments align in their emphasis on the prevention of pollution resulting from oil and gas activities? The research aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the legal frameworks, exploring whether the principle of prevention is uniformly prioritized and integrated into the pertinent legislations on both the global and national scales.

Research Hypothesis:

Based on the intricate interconnectedness of international environmental principles and the historical development of regulations following catastrophic incidents such as the Torrey Canyon oil spill, we hypothesize that both international and Iranian legal frameworks emphasize the principle of prevention in addressing pollution resulting from oil and gas activities. The hypothesis posits that an alignment exists between the global and national legal approaches, emphasizing the proactive mitigation of environmental harm through preventive measures.

Methodology & Framework, if Applicable:

To investigate the alignment of the Iranian legal system with international instruments and regulations regarding pollution prevention in the oil and gas sector, a descriptive and comparative approach was employed. The research extensively reviewed library documents, referencing texts of conventions, and scrutinized both domestic and international regulations. The comparative framework focused on identifying commonalities and divergences in the emphasis placed on the principle of prevention. The research methodology also considered historical events, such as the Torrey Canyon incident, as pivotal moments shaping the trajectory of international environmental regulations.
     In navigating the comparative analysis, the study categorized legal instruments into international conventions and Iranian laws, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal landscape. By employing a meticulous examination of these documents, the research aimed to uncover the nuances in the application of the principle of prevention, providing insights into the extent to which both legal frameworks address the challenges posed by pollution resulting from oil and gas activities.

The analysis of international and domestic regulations reveals a significant emphasis on the principle of prevention in addressing oil and gas pollution. International environmental instruments, reflecting a collective global consciousness, underscore the critical role of prevention in averting and mitigating environmental harm caused by these pollutants. The overarching conclusion is that states are entrusted to undertake activities only if they can demonstrate that such actions will not harm the environment. This necessitates strict adherence to constitutional laws, ordinary laws, regulations, and both domestic and international customs.
     The prevention principle, being interconnected with other environmental tenets, resonates across various international standards, including the principle of precautionary, principle of sovereignty, no-harm principle, principle of cooperation, information disclosure, environmental protection, and principle of sustainable development. The international arena showcases a prioritization of these principles, fortifying compliance with the principle of prevention. Countries that manifest a commitment to these principles garner greater global acceptance in the ongoing fight against environmental degradation.
     Within the internal context, the focus on Iran sheds light on its legislative landscape encompassing laws, plans, guidelines, regulations, and standards pertaining to prevent pollution, cooperation, confrontation, preparedness, protection, rehabilitation, and identification of affected areas. While Iran aligns itself with international actions and conventions, concerns arise regarding the seventh development plan code draft, marked by generality, ambiguity, and a lack of specificity in addressing environmental issues. The need for a distinct environmental chapter, issue-oriented approaches, ecological balance considerations, and guarantees for implementation are apparent shortcomings.

In conclusion, the imperative to protect against oil and gas pollution has precipitated the establishment of various international conventions and regulations. The principle of prevention emerges as a cornerstone in this effort, both at the global and national levels. Governments, bound by this principle, are mandated to ensure that their activities do not harm the environment, necessitating compliance with a myriad of legal instruments.
     International collaboration is deemed crucial for the shared goal of safeguarding the environment from hazardous oil pollution. This collaboration requires continuous dialogue, legislative efforts, and the ratification of international conventions. As societies evolve, the commitment to environmental protection becomes more pronounced, with a focus on achieving sustainable development. Iran, as an oil-producing nation, aligns itself with the global community in supporting, protecting, and preventing environmental pollution, particularly from industrial oil emissions.
     However, as evidenced by the analysis of development plans, there is room for improvement in Iran's legislative approach. The seventh development plan code draft, in particular, reveals deficiencies in specificity, issue-oriented strategies, ecological considerations, and guarantees for implementation. Recommendations include the continuous dialogue and collaboration among countries, leveraging technological advancements for accurate prediction and simulation of future regulations, and the assessment of environmental consequences before oil exploration and extraction. Collaboration between petrochemical industries and research centers, both domestically and globally, is crucial to reducing the negative impacts of oil emissions. Specific principles and standards for oil and gas environmental protection should be recognized and emphasized in international conventions, reflecting a commitment to the overarching goal of preserving the environment for future generations.