فهرست مطالب حسن غوث

More than 35 articles in the Islamic Penal Code are related to the subject of oath. One of the controversial issues regarding oaths is those who have to swear; In the first place, the oath is specific to the relatives of the victim and in some cases, it is rejected by the person suspected of murder. The question is, who are the swearers and what is their relationship with the victim (or killer)? Despite its importance, this issue has been less raised in the words of the jurists, while in practice, the execution of the oath depends on it. There are five possibilities and four promises in this regard: the actual heirs, the classes of inheritance (including the actual and potential heirs), the absolute relatives, the tribe and the absolute, the rijals. It is a famous saying among the jurists of the tribe and tribe of the slain. In this article, we have strengthened the promise of relatives, which is also approved by the Penal Code. Our evidence for this statement: The Qur'an is the appearance of narrations, the words of jurists, and the wisdom and philosophy of oath legislation.

The phenomenon of captivity is caused by war. Captive is a combatant captured by enemy forces during an armed conflict. As far as the captives’ rules and rights are concerned, a significant question not discussed adequately, is whether captivity is a right. If the answer is positive, is it the captive’s right or the captor's or the right of both? In fact, the authors intend to identify the post-captivity rules not pre-captivity rules; i.e. principally, does Islamic jurisprudence recognize a phenomenon such as “captivity”? What is the attitude of contemporary international law in this regard? This paper, after studying the possibilities of this issue, has concluded that captivity is a right for the powerless combatant and a rule and duty for prevailing forces. The sources of religious rules including the holy Quran, sunna and the behavior of wise all indicate the necessity of preserving the life of combatant who is not able to continue the battle. International conventions have emphasized on the encompassing respect of the captives' rights particularly preserving their lives.

The Islamic legal system established an institution based on which the followers of the triple religions, that is, Judaism, Christianity and Zoroastrianism, under the condition of accepting an agreement entitled as “dhamma”, could seek equality with Muslims in many citizenship rights and obligations; whereas, they have never enjoyed those equal rights. During recent years, Muslim scholars have tried to justify this rule and to reduce its negative consequences to the least possible extent. Considering the transformation of the case, the effect of time and place, and with regard to prudential jurisprudence as well as governmental jurisprudence, the authors of this brief article have attempted to prove that juridical laws regarding dhamma need to change, for the concept of dhamma and the many laws coming after that belong to the pre-modern era, when the concepts such as country, land, border, nationality and etc. either did not exist at all, or were not applied in their present sense. This doesn’t mean, however, that there is no legal dichotomy between the Muslim citizens and the People of the Book (ahl al-kitāb), for in many domains such as personal status (ahwāl al-shakhsīyya), one can still consider the dichotomy. The methodology of the present research is a combination of two
different approaches: intra-jurisprudential ‒concerning traditional independent reasoning (ijtihād-i sunnatī) which uses juridical proofs and evidences‒ and extra-jurisprudential; a second degree knowledge which is so called a juridical philosophy.