احمد مرتاضی

The interpretation of the Holy Quran is one of the most important scholarly activities of With respect to the expenses of mudarab’s business trip, there are various opinions: 1) The necessity of covering all expenses; 2) The necessity of covering expenses in excess of those incurred at domicile; and 3) The lack of necessity to cover any expenses. The first opinion is supported by the generality of the mudarabah contract, the sahih hadith of Ali ibn Ja'far, and the agent's status as an employee for the owner. The second opinion is supported by the owner's entitlement to the profit, consensus, and the third opinion is supported by the lack of difference between expenses incurred at home and on a trip, and to prevent encroachment on the property of others. After a detailed explanation of the opinions and a critical examination of the arguments, the correctness of the first opinion, which Ayatollah Khamenei also endorses, is concluded. Regarding the source of funding for the expenses, three viewpoints are observed: 1) The principal capital, even if a profit is made; 2) The profit generated; and 3) The principal capital if no profit is made. Research shows that the arguments for funding expenses from the profit or the principal capital are not logical. It is more reasonable, given evidence such as the principle of not making the provision of expenses contingent on profit, the restriction of deficiency to profit, customary understanding, and the sahih hadith of Ali ibn Ja'far, that if a profit is made, the travel expenses should be covered from the profit. If no profit is made, it seems correct to cover the expenses from the principal capital.

The main question is whether the agreement to change the organ subjects to qisas to a similar organ is legitimate and causes the right of qisas to be forfeited concerning the original organ? There has not been a comprehensive research research in this regard with an exception of a brief outline of some examples in the codified criminal law and jurisprudence texts. This article attempts to re-examine the issue by presenting new analysis while critically studying the existing views. According to the famous Imami view, this agreement is not permissible and the right of qisas remains with the termination of the agreed organ. Therefore, it is necessary to pay the dues of the similar organs that have been cut off.The reasons of the famous view are as follows: the non-realization of the originality, the irreconcilability of the blood issue, the principle of non-substitution, the non-inclusion of the rule of body integrity, and the inclusion of the obligation of qisas in the original place. Indeed, due to the invalidity of the said agreement, according to the famous view, the left hand exchange (i.e. the fall of revenge from the right hand) has not been realized and on the other hand, the same exchange (left hand) has also been cut off.According to the second view, agreeing to amputate a similar limb instead of the main limb causes the right of qisas to fall and turn it into ransom. In such cases, on the one hand, the victim is entitled to receive diya for his right hand, and on the other, due to the amputation of  criminal's left hand, he is required to pay diya. In fact, agreeing on left-handed qisas instead of right-handed qisas is like forgiving the victim of right-handed qisas in exchange for left-handed qisas. Of course, it should be maintained that victim with left-handed who agreed on qisas has abandoned right-handed qisas, not that he has turned it into diya since if his goal was to receive the diya for his right hand, he could demand it from the criminal, and there was no need for the agreed qisas of the left hand.According to the third point of view, in practice, there is an exchange between the place of qisas and its similar organ, and the similar organ replaces the retaliated organ, which will result in the fall of the victim's right of qisas. The evidence of the third view are the implied amnesty of the agreement, the possibility of a change in the organ's qisas and reference to the rules of harmlessness and exclusion.The present article, with a descriptive and analytical method, while critically examining the jurisprudential foundations of the mentioned viewpoints and giving a reasoned preference to the promise of deserving punishment as a result of the agreed qisas of the similar organ, believes that such agreements and compromises can be based on. He considered it to be correct and legitimate and considered its provisions to be enforceable. In this regard, while studying the sayings and proofs of the jurists, by presenting proofs beyond the documents that have been presented for the third point of view, this opinion has been strengthened, the proofs of the illegitimacy of the agreement on the same organ's reparations are also disputed.The pieces evidence of the selected point of view are as follows:Analyzing the issue based on the aspect of the right of qisasThe basic rule in law is that the authority is in the hands of the right holder, and transferability, revocation, compromise, pardon, and forgiveness are among its accessories. So, first of all, since revenge is a special right of the victim, then it must be possible to judge the legitimacy of such an agreement. Secondly, considering the fact that the tortfeasor, even for free, can waive his right, then as a priority, he will be able to waive his right of qisas by agreeing to the qisas of the similar organ. Thirdly, due to the personal nature of the right to qisas in crimes against the soul, it is not possible to execute qisas without demanding compensation from the victim. Therefore, ruling to invalidate the agreement and re-implementation of qisas is contrary to this Muslim rule.Analyzing the problem in terms of substantive similarityBased on numerous pieces of evidence, there is a balance between the interests and functions of similar organs; which can be cited in order to prove the legitimacy of the aforementioned agreement.Applying the verse of qisas; From the honorable verse "Write down against them, that the soul is in the soul and the eye is in the eye and..." (Ma'idah/45), which explains the law of execution of qisas due to the necessity of similarity, it can be used that the paired body parts that are opposite each other and the ruling of qisas. They are exported, regardless of the right and left, they are considered similar to each other.Habib Sajestani's narration from Imam Baqir (a.s.): "Regarding the rights of Muslims, where a person has a hand, the hand should be placed against the hand..."Homogenization of similar organs in the verse; The chapters on limb amputation are used in the works of jurists, whose view of similar limbs is almost likeness and ruling on punishment of left hand in case of lack of right hand, based on this basis.From the point of view of custom, the organs of the pair are considered similar, and characteristics such as right and left are not considered by custom.Problem analysis based on the philosophy of qisas; The main purpose of the law is to legislate qisas punishment, deterrence, providing security and life of the society and healing the wounded feelings of the victim and the society. It seems that both of the aforementioned goals can be achieved with the agreement of similar organs.Arrange rational purpose for agreement.First: It is possible that rational and valuable effects and benefits will be obtained from the said agreement. Secondly: It is possible that the motive of benevolence is also desired in the qisas of the similar organ.Requirement of No Harm and The Dar'e RulesThe verdict of non- qisas ultimately leads to the qisas of two life organs for one victim. Therefore, referring to the harmless rule, the fall of the right of qisas against the victim is explained.Also, the rule of Dar'e, also includes qisas, and with the qisas of a similar organ, the legitimacy of re-implementation of qisas is questioned, the fall of the right of qisas seems more appropriate.Legal evidencesAlthough the legislature of Iran has not explicitly commented on this matter, according to the articles 347, 361, 363 and 365 of the Islamic Penal Code, conciliation and agreeability of the right of qisas, in each of the stages of prosecution, proceedings and execution, has clearly accepted and considered the right of qisas to fall and the hypothesis of this article is confirmed.

In Islamic society, according to rational and rational evidence, governors and people have equal rights and duties, each of which must fully accomplish its duties and, on the other hand, exercise their rights in the best way. One of the duties of the people towards the governors is to choose the right one and trust them in the assignment of affairs. In contrast to one of the rights of the people in relation to this trust and choice, the right to question and impeach the assigned duties. In recent years, a two-law plan has been introduced in the legislature, which rejected the question of the authorities with the aim of attracting attention and criminalized it. But according to the present study, this plan and any similar plan have contradicted the narrative and rational arguments contained in the Islamic sources. Incidentally, in Islamic teachings, including verses and narrations, and the syllable of Prophet (PBUH) and Alavi (AS) The emphasis has been on the right of this right. Secondly, the denial of the right to ask and demand from public officials and rulers is in conflict with the principle of "freedom of expression" contained in the Constitution; thirdly, with the human rights standards and the principles of democratic societies, such as the principle of freedom of opinion and freedom of the press, and so on, which Iran is also unanimous. The present study, based on the bibliographic and descriptive-analytical sources, examines the right of question and the fundamental rejection of the twofourth plan and its similar plans and bills based on the jurisprudential doctrines and Islamic law.

In some cases, debtors try to transfer property to others with the intention of escaping from debt payment; in such a way that the remaining property is not enough to pay the debt. In order to criminalize the assumption mentioned in Article 4 of the Law on the Execution of Financial Convictions approved in 1377, it was clearly considered a condition that the debt be documented by enforceable documents or that it is preceded by a court order. In the said law in 2014, in article 21, the mentioned conditions were removed, and considering the verbal evidences in the article and the tone of the legislator, this doubt comes to mind that despite the change of the said law, the position of the legislator has not changed and, as before, the religion must have been proven by the court order and Therefore, the mandatory documents must also be issued by the court, so that they can be criminally prosecuted and subject to the criminal liability mentioned in the mentioned article. The same thing was determined even in the cases where religion was dowry; unanimous opinions were issued by the branches of the Supreme Court of the country and finally led to the issuance of the unification opinion of procedure 774, in which the necessity of having a previous conviction to pay the debt is emphasized. Religious apostasy has been discussed in criminal jurisprudence and the basis of its criminalization, and the conclusion was reached that conviction has no effect on...

The possibility of establishing a sperm bank in Islamic countries, in tandem with non-Muslim countries and specifying limits for its use, is among newly found issues of medical jurisprudence. This paper, developed through descriptive-analytical method and based on library documents, intends to prove that based on Imamiyah jurisprudential criteria, and in some cases, according to the jurisprudential and theoretical fundamentals set forth by Imam Khomeini, there is no legal problem with establishment of sperm bank but its application must be confined to freezing sperm for research purposes and for “insemination with ovum of the wife of the owner of sperm, when both are alive and married”. Therefore, receiving sperm from a male person and freezing it for donation or for any other transfer to non-wife receiver for insemination with her ovum as well as transferring sperm to the wife of the owner of sperm after his death is not permitted because with the death of either of the spouses, the conjugal relationship shall be expired and there only remains the intimacy relationship. Buying sperm and keeping it in the sperm bank for research purposes and medical tests shall be also permissible due to its rational benefits in case its production in non-emergency conditions is not through electrical stimulation, vibrator or masturbation.

Various views have been raised concerning the rule of law, but what have been accepted by most jurisprudents are the existing narratives in this regard. Even though the existing narrations are absolute and arbitrarily controversial in all its forms, the legislator, in Article 121 of the Criminal Code, excludes four cases of moharebeh, corruption, theft, and qazf,. It means that mere doubt does not lead to the rule of dar’e in these four cases; rather, the rule applies in other stages where no contradictory reason can be found. The present study shows that such a separation is inadequate in terms of jurisprudential basis and contradicts the general and general narratives related to the rule of dar’e. The reasons given by the scholars in justifying this separation are one-dimensional and obscure, and therefore not acceptable. The present study seeks to analyze the bases and arguments presented in order to justify the four exceptions of Article 121 of the Criminal Code.

The reason is something that both sides adduce to prove their statement or defend their statement. In general, items proving penal case considering degree, validity, and rank are: the judge’s knowledge, confession, witness, oath taking and Qasamah (oaths of 50 people). Accordingly, oath is considered a valid proof in cases where there are no stronger proofs available. From the perspective of Positivist Realm, there is no oath taking in Hadd and Ta‘zir cases according to Shia clerics who take into account Prophet Mohammad’s (PBUH) tradition: (البینه علی المدعی والیمین علی من انکر) “Bringing evidence is the accuser’s task and taking an oath is the defendant’s”, and (لایمین فی حد) “Taking oath in crimes resulting in Hadd is unacceptable”. Considering that Shia provides the basis for the Iranian Laws, according to the Iranian Penal Law number 208, Hadd and Ta‘zir cannot be proved or disproved by taking an oath; however, things like Qisas (retaliation), Diyah (definite compensation money), Arsh (indefinite compensation money), damage caused by the crime could be proved by oath taking. In Hanafi clerics’ view, Dar’ rule and the previously mentioned Haddiths, prevents the acceptance of oath in Hadd but oath taking in absence of witnesses for the accuser, in cases like murder and theft and so on is applicable because it pertains to Haq al-Nas (the people’s rights). In Qisas (retaliation) of the body parts, since Hanafi clerics equate body parts with properties like monetary belonging, oath taking is applicable. All that has been said about Hanafi views is practiced in the law of Afghanistan as according to second penal law of Afghanistan, except Ta‘zir, everything is in keeping with Hanafi jurisprudence. Ta‘zir, likewise, on the ground that is seen as a definite right, can be disproved with an oath taking. Above all, Qasamah, as a group of oaths from the side of the accuser and his/ her relatives in cases where there is a lack of evidence, is put forth to prove murder or charges or disprove claims made by the accuser, and are accepted as valid proof in Iranian and Afghan laws with the distinction that in Hanafi jurisprudence, is used solely in acquittal, and not in accusation cases.

If the contract of mozarebah is absolute in terms of the time of ownership of the agent over the profit, Islamic jurists have expressed different views regarding the time of ownership of the agent over the earned profit; 1. Ownership after earning profit 2. Ownership after division of shares 3. Ownership after conversion of property into money. Most Imami, Hanbali, and Hanafi jurists believe that as soon as the profit arises, mozareb (agent) becomes the owner of its share, although this ownership will be shaky. To prove their claim, this group provides various arguments such as the absoluteness of the narrations concerning the partnership of agents and owners in the profit, the prevention of unknown ownership of the profit, the requirements of initial terms and conditions between mozarebah correspondents, the requirement of the partnership aspect of mozarebah, the explicitness of Muhammad ibn Gheys's narration, concomitance between the establishment of the right to claim the division of shares with the acquisition of previous ownership, ijma (consensus) and qiyas (deductive analogy). On the other hand, the majority of Shafei jurists have chosen the second view based on arguments such as the legality of the debt contract, the preservation of capital by interest, the reliance of profit ownership on the permission of the partner and the incompleteness of the mozarebah contract before the division of property. Assuming that the profit is imaginary before liquidation, most of the Maleki jurists have also voted for the acquisition of ownership after Enzaz i.e. conversion of the profit into the common currency and its liquidation. This issue entails very important jurisprudential consequences such as the validity or invalidity of the purchase of a part of mozarebah property by the agent, the obligation of khoms (one-fifth of annual surplus income), zakat (almsgiving) and affordability. The findings of the present study, which is done by descriptive-analytical method based on library sources, shows the correctness of the view of ownership acquisition after the profit arises.

Mental and internal states that, despite the occurrence of a crime, lead to the removal of criminal responsibility from the perpetrator and prevent his punishment, are called reasons for the removal of criminal responsibility, which are both complete and relative. In Egyptian criminal law, the above reasons are referred to as obstacles to criminal responsibility and the means of eliminating the eagle. The relative causes of the removal of criminal responsibility means the placement of a person under certain circumstances and circumstances in which only in that case, due to the decline of the will, criminal responsibility is eliminated. To know. The meaning of good faith is to commit a criminal act with honorable social, human and moral motives. Drowsiness and anesthesia, involuntary drunkenness and urgency are among the relative causes.

In the issue of the replacement of presumptive evidence (amarat) and principle with types of certitude (qate), two arguments are put forward:  the first argument is that what kinds of qate these are replaced with. The second is that wether the use of preumptive evidence and principles in place of certitude by men of reason denotes its replacement with certitude. As for the first argument, the fundamentalists expressed different points of view and each has their own reasons and adherents. Out of these, Imam Khomeini believes that presumptive evidence and principles only take the place of the incomplete certitude to the situation, not the complete certitude to the situation, or incomplete or complete descriptive sitution, or the pure situation certitude. As for the second issue, the well-known fundamentalists believe that the presumptive evidence and principles are used as the replacement of certitude, and in case of lack of certitude, men of reason definitely use presumptive evidence and principle in place of certitude on a regular basis. On the contrary, Imam Khomeini believes that the argument for the replacement of presumptive evidence with certitude is basically inaccurate and men of reason have acted upon certitude in its presence and in its absence and the presence of reasonable sign, they act upon that sign and evidence without concern for its replacement or downgrading (tanzil). That is because, from the point of view of Imam Khomeini, validity of the rational presumptive sign does not depend on the validity and reliability of presumptive evidence and complementary aspect of revealing reality, but rather has an independent validity. Based on this, we should not look for legal rendering as complementing the disclosure to the presumptive evidence, to act upon certitude. This study used a descriptive-analytical approach and library resources to examine different opinions and their evidence and emphasize the accuracy of Imam Khomeini's opinion.

According to the Articles 590 and 591 of the Islamic Penal Code, the diah for cutting the eyelids as a whole is a full diah, and in splitting and cutting in less than the whole, one third of the diah is fixed for two upper eyelids and half a full diah for two lower eyelids. Meanwhile, there is disagreement between the Imamiyyah jurisprudents; the majority of the jurisprudents believe in proving the full diah as a whole, but in cutting less than the total, some believe in proving a quarter of the diah in each of the eyelids. Some have issued fatwa confirming two-third of the diah in the two upper eyelids and one-third of the diah in the two lower eyelids. The source of the difference of opinion is the difference between inference from the narrations exposed to the verdict and the conclusion of the consensus. The findings of this study which have been made through a descriptive-analytical method, indicate that in total disconnection, the full diah is fixed and the problem raised against the consensus is rejected. Given that here is an evidence, the content of the evidence is the same as the conclusion of the consensus and there is no strong reason for the possible evidence. In addition, by underestimating the documents of other sayings in the crime diah to less than a total of four quadruplets, the verdict of one-fourth of the diah on each of the stairs is reasonable.

Wife’s ownership of marriage portion is established at the moment that the engagement recital is observed. It is noteworthy that the granted ownership over the half of marriage portion is firmly fixed and settled. Whereas, her ownership over the other half of marriage portion is precarious and she gains complete ownership in case of sexual intercourse. Marriage portion varies in different forms depending on the degree of credit validity, the criterion of determination, the determinant and the time of claiming. But this difference does not have any effect on regarding marriage portion as a debt since at the moment of observing the engagement recital, the marriage portion becomes the property of the woman. Therefore, it is obligatory for the husband to grant marriage portion. However, the decree of the incumbency of its granting depends on claiming. Accordingly, either its long-term duration or its non-determination at the time of marriage does not affect its existence as a debt. The a foresaid factors can only change the amount and the time of its claiming. Importantly, sometimes the husband intends to evade payment, therefore he carries out artificial or real transactions with others in order to represent his inability for affording marriage portion. This study highlights that from a legal- jurisprudential perspective what legal status seems reasonable for these transactions. There is disagreement among Jurists and lawyers on the validity of such transactions. But the result of the present study, which has been carried out based on a descriptiveanalytical method, relying on library resources, indicates that husband’s transactions with the intention of evading payment, whether real or artificial, due to the illegality the transaction intention, are invalid. However, the aforesaid invalidity in husband’s artificial of transactions can also be claimed due to the lack of real intention, as well.

In executing of legal punishment such as cutting of hand or leg, it is probable to cut the opposite organ, by mistake, intentionally or by beneficence. In this case, the punishment of cutting is left, in view of famous theory in jurisprudence, contrary to another one. Although the in both opinion the pay of blood money is necessary, in supposition of intention of mistake and retaliation in supposition of mistake. In view of this article, by analysis of foundations, the view of un famous jurists ( revocation of legal punishments) is seem to correct, in both supposition of mistake and intention, and conformable to traditions that says it should be remain one hand and leg to offender, to accomplish basic and daily  Affairs. But this theory is reviewable, in conviction of executioner to retaliation or to pay blood money, because of contrariety with traditions, rule of Beneficence it will be in the interest of offender. (revocation of punishment, on one hand, and the right of demand of retaliation or receipt of blood money, on the other hand.) In opinion of authors, the equable way is that we say to revocation in both of intention and mistake, and at the same time we accept some proportional deterrent punishment (Taazir), in case of intention.

A ccording to Article 190 of the Civil Law, the legitimacy of the order is one of the essential conditions for the accuracy of the transactions. Concerning the condition of its effect in Article 217 of Civil Law it is stated that in order to influence the illegitimate direction (that is the nullity of the contract), which must be specified. Therefore, in the case of knowledge of one of the parties to the contrary which is illegal to the side, the contract is correct. This is while there is a discrepancy between the jurisprudents of Imamiyah, in a way which some who consider it permissible and some void. In the present research, after explaining the meaning of illegitimate direction, and quoting legal interpretation on the issue, jurisprudential principles on the issue, such as specific narrations, and prohibited contributions to sin, with considering the intention of lawgiver to eliminate the corruption of matter has been investigated and finally, the nullity of the contract is accepted if it is one-sided for illegal direction and knowledge of the other party and principles such as the principle of validity cannot prevent the void arbiter progress and it was concluded that the criterion for influencing the illegitimate direction, is identification or positivity ( and not specification of that) Therefore, it is suggested to the respectable legislator in future amendments (reforms) of the civil law.

The definition of irreversibility rule provisions about void affair is that, in case that if someone voids his own rights such as preemption, retaliation, etc., he cannot undo and enforce his voided right again. Imami and Sunni jurists’ verdict for most of the Islamic Jurisprudence chapters includes the irreversibility of the void affairs and in contrast, some Imami and Sunni jurists’ accept the reversibility of the void affairs.  It seems that verses 178 and 237 of Surah al-Bagharah, evidences from Sama‘ah, Fudhail, and Abi-Basir, and also some jurisprudential rules like Rational Reasons, Wise Peoples Rules and Lack of System Disorder and Lack of Hardship signify the reasonability of this issue. Based on the prevalent usage and practicality of this rule in Jurisprudence of Schools of thought, the current research intends to express the nature of a Void Right, and review Voidable Affairs, reversibility and irreversibility in Jurisprudence of Schools of thought and then elaborate jurisprudential reasons of the aforementioned rule.

The jurists agree if the mother who has the custody of her child is married toa person other than her father's father, the custody of the mother will becanceled. If the mother divorces her from her remarriage, there isdisagreement over the return or non-return of the custody of the mother.Many Imams and Sunni jurisprudents believe that the divorce of a motherfrom a barbarian man comes back to her custody. In their view, the mother'sremarriage is a barrier to the exercise of custody, and it is prohibited bydeterioration. In contrast to Maliki's jurisprudents and some of the Imami'sjurists, it is believed that the remarriage of a mother with a felonious manwill be lost to the custody and will not be divorced. It seems that theemergence of narratives, the rule of irreversibility of the right ofimpoverishment, and the fall of the will of the fall, implies that the right ofcustody of the mother does not return to separation from the new wife.

The Hoarding of Drug, which being done with the goal of Selling expensive or harm, is significant due to the vital role and direct connection of drugs to the health of individuals, but independent research on its religious dimensions and considerations has not been made. Therefore, the present article seeks to explain the religious decree of it, by analyzing the related verses and Traditions Also wants that Discuss and review Current laws governing it.

In collecting the data and information about the above article, the documentary and library methods were used and the analysis of the information obtained from the sources of narrative, Quranic and jurisprudential and legal texts, qualitatively and based on the inference of the researchers of them has been.

Research in Qur'anic and narrative sources shows that the criterion of the religious prohibition of hoarding is the need of people to the stored property, and the general meaning of "food", which has been mentioned in some narratives, also includes the storage and non-supply of needed drugs. Additionally, the rule of Prohibition of Harm (La Zarar), as a general reason, is another documentary for forbidding of Hoarding of Drug And due to its Priority to The rule of domination on property (Taslit), the owner of the drug is obliged to supply and distribute them and In the event of refusal, the head of the Islamic State will do so from his side. Also, according to the rules of criminal jurisprudence, the Hoarder of drug is deserves to be punished with discretionary punishment (Tazir) that its amount is determined by the head of the Islamic government.

In Iran's criminal codes, the title of goodwill and its role in the deterioration of criminal responsibility has not been given special attention and has not been addressed in the form of an independent element, but it is possible to measure some of it in the rule of Ehsan, which in Article 510 of the Criminal Code. U Approved in 1392, it appears independently. By contrast, in Indian law, the legislator, both in the Penal Code and in the general law of the country, takes a different look at the definition of goodwill and states that the basis of goodwill is to censure criminal responsibility, to be careful and to take caution, However, according to Indian general regulations, only honest belief is sufficient to eliminate criminal responsibility, whether it is precision, attention or negligence. From the precision and reflection on the various materials of the Iranian and Indian penal codes, it was concluded that goodwill according to its functional scope is considered as the commonality between the dominant causes of the elimination of responsibility and the causes of crime.

New reproductive practices on the one hand and the combination of the role of the mother, contrary to the role of the father on the other hand, has made it difficult for the mother to determine the origin of children born of these methods, because the role of the mother is not only in inoculation, but also she is responsible for the development of the fetus in the womb and giving birth. Based on this, the purpose of the present study was to explain the maternal criterion in children born of reproductive methods such as human simulation and donation of oocytes, embryo donation and uterine donation. In collecting the data and information, the documentary and library methods were used and analysis of the information obtained from the sources of narrative, Quranic and jurisprudential texts, qualitatively and based on the inference of the researchers was done.

By reflecting on the Quranic verses related to maternal criterion and the word of jurisprudents, especially contemporary Shi'a jurisprudents, it is clear that the mother's criterion in man through simulation is different from other new fertility methods, and the mother of the child born from the simulation is the mother of stem cell owner. In children born of oocyte donation, embryo donation, and uterine donation, maternal criterion is ovum and its owner is the relative mother of the child and the womb owner has a significant role in the development of the baby until delivery. She is in the judgment “Rezaei” mother.

Dar rule is one of the most important items in Islamic criminal policy That it has Decriminalize and removing of Condemnation effect. Iranian Legislator at The1370 Islamic Penal Code fall Of punishment Subject However, paid independently at the Article 120 and 121 of the 1392 Islamic Penal Code in fall Of punishment Subject. Decriminalize indicate this fact That to reduce the harmful effects of punishment or decrease severely of punishment and or Otherwise be justified punishment The second mode is where after the crime be removed generally punishmen of the crime. in `removing of condemnation` what is considered, The removal of the accused and suspects from investigation process and acquitted the accused and fix conviction of his. Dar rule, in some cases, removed certain punishment while apply another penalty and in some cases, totally `removing of condemnation`. `. Legislative approach to such that extended also Dar rule to non- Hodud and this approach is in accordance with Dar absolute evidence rule because characterized according to the Qur'an and hadith evidence, The term "Had" In the documentary base, can not be only mean certain punishment and includes absolute punishment. Qisas crimes,