فهرست مطالب موسی زرقی

Qadhaf is one of the Shariatic prescribed punishment which is also covered in the law. Article 260 of the Iranian Civil Code, adopted in 2013, stipulates that the heirs of the extruder from the libel limit exclude the couple from inheriting the libel. The main objective is to study the jurisprudential evidence of the exclusion of the couple from inheritance by defamation; of course, we have studied the views of jurists as a preliminary observation in this regard. This study was written using both jurisprudential and narrative sources and with a critical view of the views of jurists and legislators in the same law of inheritance procedure. In view of the characteristics of the inheritance procedure and the lack of evidence to exclude the couple, we conclude in this study that this article appears to be unsupported and incorrect. At the end of this study and in view of this finding, we have made suggestions to amend the article of the Iranian Civil Code.

Figh or Islamic jurisprudence as a discipline with its certain subjects of study such as the actions and practices of legally competent persons can be divided into two general categories: the jurisprudence of liturgical acts and jurisprudence of transactions. Muslim jurists believe that it makes no difference to follow religious authorities in these two areas and there is no problem with multiple authorities in this regard. However, what needs to be investigated more is that in case of forming an Islamic government at the time of Occultation and with regard to the issue of leadership of the fully competent Muslim jurisconsult and the process of passing Islamic laws in this form of government on the basis of the decrees (fatwas) issued by these religious authorities, the question is whether there is the duality of religious authority and leadership in all or some sections of jurisprudential issues or not. Having been based on the idea of appointment of the fully competent Muslim jurisconsult in the period of Occultation and making references to the books, this writing has been organized drawing upon articles and treatises about the guardianship of the Muslim jurist and relevant issues of independent reasoning (ijtihÁd) and following a religious authority. The findings of the present research show that if an Islamic government is formed under a fully competent Muslim jurist on the basis of the idea of appointment, there would be no duality as of authority and leadership between the rulings concerning the jurisprudence of interactions and all rules and laws are binding for people of all classes. In regards to the rulings concerning the jurisprudence of liturgical acts there are two theories: some of those who follow the idea of appointment consider the position of issuing fatwa (juristic decrees) as peculiar to the Muslim guardian jurist while others hold the view that Muslim jurists are independent in case of the jurisprudence of ritual acts and there is still a duality of authority and leadership.

Sexual relationship between couples sometimes happens in the usual way (Sex through the vagina) and sometimes in an unusual way (anal sex), which has medical and jurisprudential effects. Anal sex has harmful effects on both man and woman such as transmission of diseases, incontinence of feces in woman, etc. from the point of jurisprudence, anal sex can have effects on Term of widowhood which is an important subject in family law. In this paper this question is asked whether the Term of widowhood of divorce is for absolute sex or it is just related to sex through vagina. This discussion has somehow been raised in the first part of Article 1155 of the Civil Law, and it is considered necessary for the absolute closeness. Among the wellknown jurists there is a consensus that the divorced woman should take Term of widowhood if she had each kind of sex.People who has this idea citing verbal and non-verbal reasons. The authors, with a deep examination and critique of each of these arguments, have concluded that the necessity of Term of widowhood is only related to the state of sex through vagina, and the anal sex doesn’t require Term of widowhood. In view of the above jurisprudential result, it is possible to amend Article 1155 of the Civil Law.

Akhbārism is one of the most important Shiite jurisprudential schools. It prevailed from the early eleventh century for about two hundred years as the mainstream in some jurisprudence arenas. In a number of jurisprudential books and jurisprudential principles, some jurists have been referred to as being Akhbāri. Despite the many studies that have been done in the field Akhbārism, providing a complete list of Akhbāri jurists has not been considered yet. Due to the lack of a precise logical definition for Akhbārism as well as a lack of criteria for the recognition of Akhbāri jurists, the present study aims at introducing Akhbāri jurists through a detailed investigation into the books of biography and bibliography. There is disagreement about whether or not some of these characters are Akhbāri, an ambiguity which can be resolved by reviewing the works of these people. At the end of the study, seventy Shiite jurists have been introduced as Akhbāri jurists and listed in a summarizing table.

Dividing the jurists into akhbārī (traditionist) and uṣūlī (legal theorist) is the most important division that dichotomizes the Imāmī jurists into two groups. In jurisprudential and legal (uṣūlī) books, there are many instances of characterizing a jurist as akhbārī or uṣūlī, but what is important in this division is the criterion for this division. What is manifested in the first place as the criterion for division is the remark made by the jurist in terms of his being akhbārī or uṣūlī and the akhbārī or uṣūlī dimension of the masters or disciples of that jurist. By a preliminary study, the non-efficiency of these criteria is manifested. However, another possible criterion widely addressed in this writing is the differences between the akhbārīs and uṣūlīs that are mentioned to be over a hundred in number. In case these differences are real and important, a criterion can be obtained and it can be realized as to which category of jurists a jurist would belong. Nevertheless, by examining and categorizing these differences, it would be figured out that these differences are not the criterion for dividing the jurists, nor is there any accurate criterion for this dividing.

In Sunnī and Imāmī jurisprudence، some have said that the legal base in devising rulings is founded on “differentiation between similarities (mutimāthilāt)” and “reconciliation between differences (mutafarriqāt)” and in other words، the legal basis is on the notion of considering the ruling of the similar subjects as different and the ruling of the different subjects as similar. Most of those maintaining the existence of this basis in legal law have stated it as a reason for the invalidity of analogy (qiyās); and some have resorted to it for solving the problems of the rulings that are apparently inconsistent with intellect. The only reason of those maintaining this view is the examples in which the ruling for the similar subjects is apparently considered as different and the ruling of the different subjects as similar. Some jurists have rejected the existence of such basis in legal law and have mentioned some responses to the claims of its proponents، most of which indicate the legal laws as having a cause (mu‘allal) and that it is not possible to consider the ruling of the similar subjects as different. In this writing، we examine the origin of this rule and the arguments of its believers and deniers. What is obtained as a conclusion from the examination of this claim and its responses is that whether the basis is on judicial doctrine، which regards the rulings as centered around the interests (masāliḥ) and abuses (mafāsid)، or based on the Ash‘rite doctrine that does not regard the rulings subject to specific reasons، such a proposition is not resolute.