محمدرسول آهنگران

Forced adultery is one of the crimes that lead to the violation of public modesty and leaves destructive effects on the psyche and health of the victim of this crime. The destructive consequences of this crime are so numerous and unfortunate that the laws have determined severe punishments for it. Criminalization of adultery has been done in our legal laws due to the influence of Islamic jurisprudence. The severity of the reaction to this crime in the laws shows the importance of preventing it. Undoubtedly, it is very important to take preventive measures against rape. These measures can often be realized in two ways: 1. Through criminal solutions, 2. Through social work and action measures. This research is written by examining and comparing researches and other scientific achievements with a descriptive-analytical method, and it tries to identify the most important components of the prevention of forced adultery in the penal policy of Islam and Iran. This research has found that the prevention of forced adultery in Islamic criminal policy and jurisprudence, especially in Iran, has special criminological components that should always be paid attention to, including social and situational prevention, control of potential criminals, protection of criminals and crime targets, educational measures in the family and social environment, reduction of irritants, cultural and socialization measures, promotion of religious values and Islamic hijab, and police measures to prevent the occurrence of this crime of rape.

The option condition (Khiyare Shart) is a type of right to terminate a binding contract for a specified period, which is formed based on the consent and will of one or both parties or a third party, as stipulated in Article 396 of the Civil Code. The application of the option condition is valid in many contracts, and most Imami jurists have accepted the permissibility of including the option condition in the mortgage contract. The Iranian Civil Code does not explicitly mention the possibility of including the option condition in the mortgage contract. However, based on Article 456 of the Civil Code, which refers to the application of the option condition in all contracts and only considers the three options of  (Majles), animal, and delay in price (takhire Saman) as exclusive to sale, one can discover the positive view and response of the legislator to this issue. The outcome of the present study, which has been organized using a descriptive-analytical method, is that based on reasons such as the lack of legitimacy of the option condition in the mortgage contract, its contradiction with the nature of the mortgage contract, its contradiction with the imperative rule (Qanune Amereh), and the practice of rational people (Sireh 'oqala) not to include the option condition in the mortgage contract, one can rule that the application of the option condition in the mortgage contract is invalid.

Iqaa Fozuli is one of the topics that does not have a specific ruling in general in Iran's legal system. Therefore, based on the license issued by Article 167 of the Constitution and Article 3 of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Inevitably, referring to jurisprudence as the main source of laws in the country, the opinions of jurists were examined in this regard. Most of them have commented on its authenticity in Iqaaat based on the basis of idiosyncratic selling, and a large number of jurists have voted against the invalidity of Iqaat's idioms. The appearance of the statements of the Imamiyyah jurists is that no-deal contracts, both exchange and non-exchange, are all valid and non-enforceable, and like no-sale, they need the permission of the owner. However, there is a difference of opinion among the jurists of the Imamiyyah regarding the nosy narrations, and some of them believe that it is correct and some believe that it is invalid. The Civil Code of the Islamic Republic is also silent about voyeurism and does not have an explicit ruling. In the end, it can be concluded that Maliki's jurisprudence has a lot in common with the Imami jurisprudence in the issue of the sale of promiscuous property; Although there are differences of jurisprudential opinions in some branches. However, from the comparison of the issues discussed in Maliki's jurisprudence with what is found in the books of Imamiyyah jurisprudence, we come to the conclusion that the number and variety of branches of the plan There are many more issues mentioned in Imami jurisprudence books than Maliki jurisprudence. What the author has learned from the Hanafi religion is that, in order to explain the principles of fiddling with the rulings of proxy and proxy, one can consider the development of the Hanafis' point of view against fiddling operations, including marriage and marriage. In Shafi'i jurisprudence, it is famous for the invalidity of Iqaa Foli, who considered the role of will in marriage and Iqaa to be distinct in their foundations. On the other hand, they tend to invalidate nikah fuli. In Hanbaleh, the opinions are mixed, but the tendency is to validate the idiosyncratic sound in the case of enforcement.

Roads and their legal setbacks constitute vital components of national infrastructure in every country. The entitlement to traverse these roads may arise either organically or through established conventions on private property. This article delves into the regulations governing roads and setbacks for right of way, examining them through the lens of jurists associated with diverse Islamic denominations. Additionally, it scrutinizes the legislative policies of Iranian law, highlighting existing gaps therein. Consequently, the focus lies on delineating specific criteria for classifying road types and their associated regulations. Our research reveals both similarities and disparities among jurists representing various Islamic denominations concerning road rules and classifications. Furthermore, the legislative policies of Iranian law exhibit deficiencies regarding road regulations and setbacks. To address these gaps effectively, leveraging insights from these discussions can serve to refine existing legal frameworks pertaining to roads and right of way.

Absence of a legal framework for resolving commercial disputes and distinguishing them from civil contracts, made it necessary to create solutions to find an effective mechanism. This research aims to examine the structure and importance of commercial courts by using the indicators to distinguish commercial from civil contracts. This research is a descriptive-analytical type and has tried to achieve a coherent understanding of this issue by analyzing the researches related to commercial courts and differentiating them from general-law courts. Since one of the obstacles to foreign investment in Iran is the lack of commercial courts, the role of expert judges in dealing with commercial cases in the development of trade, facilitating investment and improving the economic indicators of today's societies is undeniable. Despite the formation of specialized commercial courts in French, British and American legal system and the emphasis on its legal and economic needs, the creation of these courts is still one of the reforms and necessities of Iran's judicial system. The establishment of these courts, in addition to being specialized aspects, can help speed up, reduce costs and make more reliable the processing of commercial claims that originate from the inherent and unique features of commercial law. Therefore, all efforts should be made to determine the structure and importance of these courts and in this way help the country's business and economy.

In order to strengthen the legal relations of individuals and prevent any instability and instability in the obligations and implementation of contracts that lead to disorder in the economic and social relations of individuals in society, in all countries and worldwide, The provisions of the contracts have become binding. The principle of necessity also means that individuals must abide by their own commitments and agreements and consider them respectable and binding. All contracts entered into in accordance with the law follow certain principles and rules. The legislature has also introduced and reviewed these common principles and rules as the "General Rules of Contracts." The first principle that the legislator has dealt with in these articles is the principle of necessity, and this is the same principle that the jurists call "the principle of necessity". The literal meaning of the word principle and the customary and religious structure of this principle in sale is necessary; That is, the intention of the people to buy and sell is that the original owner's relationship with the property is severed, and he becomes alienated from it, and the cucumber is an external right that is placed for one or both parties and is revocable. The meaning and concept of the principle of necessity in legal terms is that, when a contract is concluded correctly, the principle is that it is necessary between the parties and they must be faithful to the obligations they have made. Therefore, any contract that is not specified as permissible is necessary and neither party can terminate it except in certain cases.

The issue of the effect of simultaneous death and dismissal on the judge in judicial representation and the execution of the issued judgments is one of the topics that has not been determined in the law and no specific procedure has been found in this matter. On the other hand, the said issue is discussed in jurisprudence, and because of that, there is no room for ijtihad or current practice. Therefore, by prescribing the principle of 167 Q.A. and Article 3 of Q.A.D.M. The descriptions mentioned for it have been analyzed and answered in Imamiyyah and Sunni jurisprudence with a comparative approach. In Imamiyyah, the death and dismissal of the judge of the scribe before reaching receiver, assuming the intention of the book, considers the receiver to be taken from it. However, the transgression of the scriber before reaching the written form is a sign that the transgression is connected to the written form, and therefore it is not permissible to act on it, while changing the state of the written form is not considered effective in the judicial representation and execution of judgments. Two types of theories have been presented in Sunni. In Hanafi jurisprudence, before receiving the book from the scriber, not only the transgression, but also the death and dismissal of the scriber and the receiver, even if it has left the scriber's hand, are considered the cause of its invalidity. In Maliki's jurisprudence, although they do not consider it to be a wide range of subjects and consider it to include all subjects, including the rights of God and the rights of people, any loss of the conditions of a judge or his death and dismissal, whether as a scriber or a receiver, is considered a cause of invalidity of the judge's scribe. Therefore, in Maliki jurisprudence, the reputation is in the lack of difference in the loss of conditions regarding the scriber or the receiver. In the famous Shafi'i jurisprudence, they consider the lack of effect of death, removal, and corruption of the scribe or scribe and consider more validity for the judge's scribe and its imposed appearance. According to Hanbali, the death and dismissal of the scriber and the receiver after leaving the scribe's place, is considered to be the place of execution and enforcement.

The role of the judge's written decisions in Islamic jurisprudence is a complex and nuanced aspect that has found its way into legal discourse in Iran. This paper delves into the intricacies of this subject, focusing on the implications of the judge's writing concerning the delegation of judicial representation and the execution of court judgments within the framework of the Islamic legal system and the specific judicial practices in Iran. While the content of the judge's writing is rooted in legal sources, the extent to which the legislator has considered its relevance in the refinement of laws related to judicial representation and judgment execution remains a matter of debate.

Research QuestionThe central inquiry of this study revolves around the role and acceptance of the judge's writing in Islamic jurisprudence, with a particular emphasis on its application in the delegation of judicial representation and the execution of court judgments. The overarching question seeks to understand the compatibility of current legal provisions with the fundamental principles of Islamic jurisprudence regarding the judge's written decisions. Additionally, the study explores the divergent views on this matter among Sunni and Shia scholars and aims to uncover the common ground that unifies their perspectives.

Research HypothesisBuilding upon existing legal scholarship and the intersection of Islamic jurisprudence and the Iranian judicial system, this study posits that the judge's writing serves as a foundational element for the delegation of judicial representation and the execution of court judgments. The hypothesis suggests that despite the differences between Sunni and Shia perspectives, a unified understanding can be achieved through careful consideration and modification of legal provisions. It anticipates that the judge's writing, when properly contextualized within the principles of Islamic jurisprudence, can provide a robust basis for legal procedures related to judicial representation and judgment execution.

Methodology & Framework, if Applicable:

This research adopts a doctrinal and critical approach to analyze the judicial procedures in Iran, focusing on the judge writing and its implications for the delegation of judicial representation and judgment execution. Drawing from extensive legal literature, including the opinions of Sunni and Shia scholars, the study also examines the relevant laws of Iran, such as Article 290 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Articles 119 and 484 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Islamic Republic of Iran. This examination involves a comprehensive review of legal sources, library resources, and judicial practices in Iran.
     The framework of this study encompasses a thorough exploration of the doctrinal foundations of the judge's writing, considering its reception within the broader context of Islamic jurisprudence. The critical analysis extends to the current legal provisions in Iran, evaluating their alignment with the principles derived from the judge's writing. By adopting a comparative approach, the study seeks to clarify the divergences in views and propose a unified perspective that reconciles the practical aspects of the Iranian legal system with the principles of Islamic jurisprudence.
     This research aspires to contribute valuable insights into the multifaceted relationship between the judge's writing, the delegation of judicial representation, and the execution of court judgments, providing a nuanced understanding for both scholars and legislators, ultimately guiding potential legal refinements in this domain.

The findings of this study, rooted in Islamic jurisprudence, reveal that providing testimony regarding a prior testimony is permissible under certain conditions within the context of the judge writing. However, the significance lies in the consensus among Shia scholars, indicating that the testimony of two individuals on a written judgment by a judge, verbally elaborated by the judge, holds evidentiary weight. This is due to the stabilizing nature of subsequent testimony over the initial one. Contemporary practices ensure the authenticity of the judge's writing through measures such as guaranteeing the non-distortion of its content or the judge's intent in executing representation. From a legal standpoint, compliance with the judge's representation request is considered obligatory upon the receiving judge.
     As elucidated, the statements of legal scholars accept the judge's writing, whether it be an explicit declaration by the judge or his physical presence while verbally endorsing the written document, but subject to the condition of the second judges’ sufficient knowledge. The analysis of the judge's writing revealed its applicability in both scenarios, aligning with the essence of the discussed principles. In essence, the purpose behind the judge writing is the execution of the judgment and the request made by the issuing judge, exercising control and authority over the involved parties.

In conclusion, the research provides a comprehensive understanding of the judge's writing and its implications for judicial representation and the execution of court judgments in the Islamic legal context. Drawing from Islamic jurisprudence and the Iranian legal system, the study navigates through the intricacies of the judge's writing, revealing its multifaceted role in legal proceedings.
     From a legal perspective, the study suggests two primary objectives. Firstly, it advocates for the codification of regulations in conformity with the nature of the judge's writing in the existing legal frameworks, emphasizing unity of approach. Secondly, the study seeks to address the identified gaps in the current literature on this subject, enriching the scholarly discourse within this domain.
     By aligning with the two stated objectives and harmonizing them with the analyses presented in this research, the final recommendation calls for the amendment or removal of the conclusive clause in Article 290 of the Civil Procedure Code. The requirement for certainty on the part of the representative in verifying the accuracy of the report by the receiving representative contradicts the legal and Sharia purpose of the provision. Additionally, the study clarifies that the judge's writing is not applicable to the execution of Hudud punishments, and current practices fall under the realm of executing the judge's judgment in the same judicial jurisdiction.
     The study hopes that the insights provided will guide legislators and scholars in refining legal provisions related to the judge's writing, judicial representation, and judgment execution. The highlighted issues underscore the need for a nuanced and contextually aligned legal approach, ensuring the compatibility of the legal framework with the principles derived from the judge's writing within the Islamic legal tradition.

Nowadays, with regard to progress of medical science, in some cases, people transplant organs due to illness, accidents, etc. Imami jurists have allowed organ transplantation based on some conditions. But this question arises: what is the rule of this new organ-which is an artificial organ or an organ separated from an animal or human-in terms of jurisprudence, and what is the duty of the person who has transplanted while doing religious duties (ablution, Ghosl, prayer and Hajj)? The purpose of this research is analyzing the religious effects and rules of transplanted organs.

In order to explain religious duty of a person who has transplanted, this descriptive-analytical research aims to study the rules of organ transplantation by separating the different cases while studying the narrations related to the issue and jurisprudential rules and texts.

In natural organs (both human and animal body parts) if the transplanted organ welds, is a part of the person's body and is pure. Also, about parts without soul-except for the parts of an impure animal-even if the part is not welded, it is pure. But in this case-unlike the previous case-it is not considered a part of the person's body, so there is no need to wash or anoint it while ablution or Ghosl. About the organs with soul, even though they are impure as long as they are not transplanted, but in case of necessity and urgency, there is no problem in praying with them. Also about artificial organs, if the parts of an impure animal are not used in them, they don’t affect the validity of the prayer.

The practice of buying and selling by children, characterized as a financial transaction based on intention and discretion, has presented a challenge for Islamic and Iranian jurists. The research aims to investigate and evaluate various perspectives regarding the validity or invalidity of such transactions, with the goal of reaching a balanced viewpoint. The research adopts a descriptive-analytical approach and relies on library resources for data collection. Notably, renowned Imamiyyah and Shafi'i jurists have deemed the financial transactions by children to be invalid. Conversely, some scholars argue for its validity despite factors such as the child's age or the transaction's low value. A middle-ground perspective suggests that the transactions by a child is not categorically invalid but requires permission, a standpoint supported by certain jurists from the Imamiyyah and Sunni schools. Additionally, this view finds support in Article 1211 of the Iranian Civil Code. Some jurists have also shown inclination towards this middle-ground perspective. The research findings highlight the importance of not only obtaining the guardian's permission but also considering the child's well-being and development.

 Testimony as a proof of a lawsuit is a common feature of the jurisprudence and law systems of Iran and Egypt. And through the comparative understanding of its jurisprudential, legal and penal works in the Imami jurisprudence systems and the laws of Iran and Egypt and introducing the weaknesses and strengths of each of them, this important goal was achieved.The findings of the present research, which was conducted in a comparative manner for the first time and in a descriptive-analytical method, show that forced martyrdom in Imamiyyah jurisprudence and Iranian and Egyptian law has common effects, which can be used to determine the order of effect before issuing a verdict. It and the punishment of a witness by force and for after the issuance of the verdict, violation of the verdict, compensation for damages, resumption of proceedings and the punishments corresponding to the crime resulting from the witnessing by force, which in Iranian jurisprudence and law are ta'zir, hudud, retribution and diat, and in Egyptian law, the punishments are proportional to It concluded misdemeanor crimes. Another comparative finding of this research is the special attention of Imami jurisprudence to the punishment of defamation as well as dealing with family law issues such as divorce and marriage, which are considered to be one of the strengths of this legal system, and the absence of these positive works in the laws of Iran and Egypt is one of the shortcomings and weaknesses. The two mentioned systems have been concluded.

In cases where the blood money for the killer exceeds that of the victim, and the avengers of blood demand Qisas (retaliation), attaining the right of Qisas requires restitution of the difference in Diyeh to the person being avenged. The responsibility for paying the difference in Diyeh varies depending on the circumstances. It can be the responsibility of the owner of the right of retribution (the victim or the avengers of blood), the person or persons who are not avenged against, or the avenge (one administering retaliation) and their accomplice(s). However, if the issue of complicity in an intentional crime is not raised, the payment of Diyeh is solely the responsibility of the owner of the right of retribution. For example, when a man knowingly and intentionally kills a woman, the avengers of blood must pay him half of the killer's Diyeh.Despite the jurisprudential background and legislative history of Diyeh, the Iranian legislator has not stated its specific provisions in an independent chapter in the new Islamic criminal code approved in 2013, instead allocating various provisions to scattered sections. As a result, new issues in the judicial procedure face unresolved challenges due to the lack of a definitive text. One objective and factual issue that arises in a criminal case is when a third party (not the avenger of blood), without the permission of the avengers of blood, pays the difference in the killer's Diyeh during the execution of criminal sentences in the judicial fund. In such cases, questions arise regarding the approach to be adopted and the nature of this legal action. According to Article 427 of the Islamic Penal Code approved in 2013, the nature of the payment of Diyeh by the avengers of blood is to compensate for the damage caused, create balance and equality between the killer and the victim, and it is an imperative rule, not a condition for the emergence of the right to retribution (not a favorable rule). For this reason, as soon as the crime occurs, the avenger of blood has the right to retaliation, but the retaliation depends on the payment of the difference in Diyeh. If the right of retribution were based on the payment of the difference, and the guardian retaliated without paying, he would also be retaliated against. However, according to the rule of 427, he commits ta'zeer. Legislators have remained silent about the nature of payment of the difference by a third party in the Islamic criminal Code, leading to challenges and fundamental differences of opinion among lawyers and within the judicial procedure of criminal courts. One of these challenges is whether, by paying the difference in Diyeh through a third party, there is a possibility of retaliation for the avengers of blood. Additionally, once Diyeh is paid, does the third party become a stranger without rights to it? Do the rules of debt apply, or can a third party or the avengers of blood go directly to the criminal enforcement unit for reimbursement? Does the difference in Diyeh become the property of the killer or their heirs, allowing any interference, or is it solely for the fulfillment of the killer's retaliation, refundable by the third party before the retaliation? The answer to all these challenges depends on explaining the nature and examining the legal effects of this act, specifically the third-party payment of the difference in Diyeh. The importance of this matter goes beyond the presentation of a legal theory, and adhering to one of the proposed views on the nature of the third-party payment of the difference in Diyeh can ultimately determine whether the killer faces retaliation or is released from it until another time.The present research, which is novel in its kind, after explaining the basic concepts of the research, separates the nature of the Diyeh from the difference in the Diyeh and then examines the nature of the difference in the Diyeh paid by the third party from the perspective of jurists and judicial procedure and while criticizing the views of the opponents, tries to present a theory in accordance with the foundations of Islamic jurisprudence and law and their principles and rules.

The central issue of this article is the nature and rationale behind the formality of extra-constitutional principles and cases in the current constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran. For this reason, we have discussed and debated using a descriptive and analytical method while adopting a critical approach. According to our research findings, the aforementioned principles and cases are two separate and distinct topics. The identification and formalization of these in the constitution itself is a flaw. In other words, the restriction of such categories is not acceptable and is justified only for the purpose of maintaining stability and ensuring the rule of the constitution, but their expanded scope poses issues. Therefore, the criteria considered by the fundamental legislator of the Islamic Republic of Iran, after reviewing the entry of items with a structural and normative description under Article 177, are criticized from the perspective of this article.
However, it must be acknowledged that the current constitution of the country has solid scholarly and popular foundations, and its orientation in this field seems logical. From our perspective, any form of support for the constitution as the paramount political legal document of the nation and any amendments to its content should be carried out while respecting the principles of republicanism and Islamism, ensuring their maintenance and safeguarding.

The current age is full of regional wars in the Middle East and defending the land and frontiers of Islamic Republic of Iran based on geostrategic theories is not restricted to the national geography of this country. The question of how to defend the country at this juncture is an issue of contemplation by the legal and political circles and thinkers, i.e. diplomacy and action. This paper, developed through an analytical-descriptive method and by using library tools has come to the conclusion that a glance at the jurisprudential fundamentals indicates that self-defense, i.e. use of force to avoid damage is obligatory. A clear example of this is the use of force for defense as exception to the principle of prohibition of resorting to force. Of course, jurisprudential approaches toward the issue are sometimes accompanied by differences. The necessity of jihad for defense is not conditional to the decision of the infallible leader or his private or public vicegerent. However, with the presumption of formation of a powerful Islamic rule headed by just and obedient leader, if possible and in case of lack of serious damage for delay in defense until legal permission, defense at the permission and based on the decision of a legitimate leader will be permissible upon his discernment. This paper, reviewing differences in opinions over the issue, intends to clarify self-defense in view of Islam as well as its jurisprudential fundamentals, the extent of jihad for defense, including defense of Islam against conspiracies of the enemies, defending the land and territory of Islam, defending Islamic states, defending Muslim citizens of Islamic states and other believers, and finally terms and restrictions of jihad for defense, concentrating discussion of the issue on Imam Khomeini’s viewpoints.

Since the beginning of the formation of the principles of jurisprudence, the conflict of evidence has been discussed and paid attention to due to its great application and efficiency in the process of deriving rulings and interpreting Islamic regulations, responding to incidents and solving new problems. Among other things, in the current social situation, economic contracts affected by severe economic fluctuations caused by various causes and factors have caused difficulties for the contracting parties in the implementation of the contract and caused one party severe hardship and embarrassment, and on the other hand, non-implementation of the contract also caused The other side is harmed and in this case, a harmless and embarrassing conflict occurs. Therefore, the present article with a descriptive-analytical method, while explaining the basics of these two rules, has reached these results that what is beyond human capacity and in which there is narrowness, hardship, difficulty, and difficulty is the ruling, both obligatory and situational. It is ruled out. On the other hand, jurists and lawyers should consider difficult conditions in contracts and include them in the text of the contract, pay special attention to the conditions of force majeure, and predict what is likely to happen and may affect contractual relations. . Also, until the adoption of a law on the acceptance of the "change of circumstances" theory, the honorable community of judges can issue a verdict based on the following evidence using authentic Islamic sources or authentic fatwas.

Qunut is one of the components of prayer that has been constantly disputed in Imami and Sunni jurisprudence. Imami jurists until the early eleventh century A.H., relying on the generality of the narrations, unanimously accepted the recommendation of Qunut in all prayers, but since then, some jurists predicated on the narration of Abdullah ibn Sinan believed that Qunut is not recommended in prayer. In contrast, Sunni jurists only consider Qunut legitimate in certain cases. For the first time, the present article seeks to critique the views of different denominations in this field by abandoning religious prejudices and using credible sources. In this descriptive-analytical study, using library data, the documents of different sects were examined and it became clear that from the Imami point of view, Qunut is recommended in all prayers including the shaf’ prayer and that furthermore, the narration of ‘Abdullah ibn Sinan cannot specify the generality of the recommendation of Qunut. In Sunni jurisprudence, it has also been proven that Qunut is absolutely recommended without any conditions or exemptions in the Morning Prayer, the watr prayer, and when disasters occur, and there is no valid reason to limit these three Qunut to a few specific cases.

The study of diseases prevention is considered as an important factor and a cheap method to control a variety of infectious diseases such as coronavirus (Covid 19). Due to comprehensiveness of Islam, it has preventive hygienic teachings, that in many religious teachings, the infectious diseases such as plague and cholera were mentioned, and by revising its basis, some strategies can be provided to combat the coronavirus. The present study seeks to provide preventive strategies to combat infectious diseases from a religious perspective and its compliance with medical guidelines in both personal and public health, and emphasizes the role of these strategies in adhering to health practices to combat Corona by the religious people.

This research is a descriptive-analytical library study that extracts hygienic preventive strategic components by studying religious teachings and has compliance each of these strategies to the preventive guidelines of medical science.

From the religious teachings in facing infectious diseases in the two areas of personal and public health, four strategies are approached: the strategy of purity and cleanliness; environmental health; Social distance; quarantine. These four strategies are in full compliance with the guidelines and findings of medical science regarding corona virus and include the religious obligation to all obligees, which motivate more religious people than others to adhere to the preventive health guidelines against Corona

Mu’atati marriage is one of the challenging and important issues in family jurisprudence. Some jurists, accepting the point that words are not relevant in the fulfillment of demand and acceptance, have claimed the validity of the marriage of mu’atati, but most jurists believe that such a marriage contract (Aqd) is not valid, which was stated by Imam Khomeini. It seems that despite the verses and hadiths, the consensus and the sirah (lifestyle) of Muslims, the view of most jurists is more valid. From the point of view of Imam Khomeini, the requirement of the principle of Mu’atat in every marriage and Iqaa (Those pronouncements which do not require participation of two parties) is that its composition should be turned into the deed. Because the deed, like the word, is a means of valid creation and iqaa. As a result, in this article, the jurisprudential explanation of marriage without a verbal contract (mu’atati) was dealt with from the point of view of Imam Khomeini. For this purpose, the validity of mu’atati marriage has been analyzed by descriptive analytical method and in line with the investigation of this issue, taking into account the views of Imam Khomeini and other jurists.

The discussion of the miracle of the Qur'an is one of the "posterior" discussions of the Holy Qur'an; In the sense that in the Qur'an itself and even in the tradition of the Prophet, there is no explicitness in the word miracle. Undoubtedly, the presentation of a miracle is one of the necessities of a prophet's claim that he was sent by God. But what miracles the Prophet of Islam performed was disputed by Muslim scholars; Let alone the Orientalists. What is common among Muslims is that, apart from the other miracles of the Prophet of Islam, the Holy Quran is his eternal miracle. One of the later greats who tried to prove the miracle of the Qur'an by mentioning the preliminaries and presenting narrative and rational reasons is Ayatollah Seyyed Abolghasem Khoy rzwan Allah Alayh, who has dealt with this issue in his book "Al-Bayan Fi Tafsir Al-Quran". In this article, an attempt has been made to explain their introductions, methodology, and rational and narrative arguments in the discussion of the miracle of the Qur'an and to criticize them in a descriptive and analytical manner; As a result, it turned out that most of his arguments were either far-fetched or incomplete; And this finding does not contradict the proof of the miracle of the Qur'an in other ways, nor does it contradict the unreasonable position of Ayatollah Khoi.

The existence of some gaps in society in terms of the need for spirituality has caused spirituality enthusiasts to mistakenly resort to some claimants to satisfy this need:If these people are left alone, they will become a source of corruption for a part of the society and threaten the psychological and spiritual security of the society.Now the question is whether the holy shari'a, which is sensitive to the security of the lives of the people, and to the corruption on earth that leads to the threat to life, and also to the psychological and social security of the people, or not?If such a punishment is considered from the point of view of the Shari'a, what is the amount? Is the title of corruptor on earth given to such people or not?To answer the extent of corruption on earth will be investigated and the questions raised will be try.

One of the divisions of contract in Imamiyah jurisprudence and Iranian law is covenant or possession, which is divided into continuous and immediate by considering the time in the definition of contract. A continuous contract is a covenant contract that is opposed to an immediate contract and its fulfillment becomes possible with the passage of time. The difference between continuous and immediate contract is in the covenant or possession nature of the contract and the relationship between the subject of the contract and the element of time. In the laws of some western countries, the contract of renting is considered as a covenant that the contract itself and the obligation resulting from it is continuous, but in the laws of Iran, based on Imamiyah jurisprudence, this contract is a possession contract. This article evaluates the concept of continuous and immediate contract in Imamiyah jurisprudence and the laws of Iran and other countries with a descriptive-analytical method. The result of the present article is that due to the lack of jurisprudential background for the existence of a continuous contract and according to the definition of the Imamiyah jurists and civil law of the contract of renting, the element of time has been considered in the contract of renting. In addition, based on the result according to the third paragraph of the article 490 of Civil Law, the authors believe that the contract of renting is immediate. The most important effect of immediacy is the possibility of lien in this contract, because in continuous contracts, due to the fact that the performance of the resulting obligation over time is not the same as the compensation received by the obligee, it cannot be assumed that there is a lien in continuous contracts.

The different applications of the words of the Qurʾān sometimes provide different meanings. This applications sometimes do not change the general meaning of the Quranic verses; But they make it difficult to understand the subtleties of the Qurʾān's meanings and reveal weak points in understanding the meaning. One of the roots of words whose different meanings have sometimes created far-fetched translations and interpretations is root <ʿJB> (usually means amazing), which can be seen in several verses of the Qurʾān. Most Arabic and Persian commentators and translators have interpreted it as “surprise”. A small number of commentators have also tried to interpret some of the usages of this root as “pleasant” and the like by distinguishing between different passages. This latter understanding is usually seen among the translators of the Qurʾān in European languages. The lack of a clear rule to distinguish the meaning of this root in its various applications has caused confusion. The present study is devoted to the analysis of the meaning of words derived from this root, and it is based on a descriptive-analytical method to examine this article lexically and morphologically, and by reviewing the commentators' opinions about the verses containing this article, its correct meaning in each explains its application. The achievement of this study is to evaluate this rule: the root <ʿjb> in all of it's application as an abstracted triple verb (al-Thulāthī al-Mujarrad) only means “surprise”; but in the case of Mazīd verbs, it is possible to have both meanings: pleasant and unpleasant, which of course, according to the context of the verse, the correct meaning is extracted.