مقالات رزومه بتول سلحشور

In Shari'a teachings, various punishments have been considered for adultery, the most severe of which seems to be “stoning". Proof of stoning is contingent upon verification of “Iḥsan "; Therefore, the existence of Iḥsan can change the punishment of a criminal from a lesser punishment (a hundred lashes) to a more severe punishment (stoning). In Imamiyyah jurisprudence, there are some conditions for obtaining Iḥsan, one of the most important of which is that a person does not need to commit an illegitimate relationship because he or she is able to have sexual intercourse with his or her spouse. The challenge that exists in this context is that several jurists have stated that in order to verify Iḥsan for a man, he should have the continuous possibility of having sex with his wife, otherwise he is not subject to the punishment of stoning; but they have not accepted such a right for women. This view is also recognized in Article 226 of the Islamic Penal Code.  The present study, in a descriptive-analytical research, while analyzing the opinions of jurists, has criticized and measured such a view. The results of the research indicate that the mere presence of the husband, without his wife having the possibility of sexual intercourse, is not enough for the wife's Iḥsan, and about women, as about men, the possibility of continuous sexual intercourse with their spouse is a condition and there should be no difference between men and women in this area. Therefore, it is necessary to change the above-mentioned approach of the legislator and the equality of couples in right to continuous sexual intercourse should be explicitly emphasized in Article 226.

The issue of prophethood is one of the fundamental principles of Islam, and due to its position in Islam, there have always been individuals in societies who have tried to create doubts among Muslims about the honesty of the Prophet and his prophethood. This issue is still prevalent today. In this descriptive-analytical study, the approach of the Imami criminal jurisprudence regarding doubts about prophethood is explained. For this purpose, after stating the opinions on the issue, the evidence and foundations of each opinion have been analyzed and examined. The result is that although some jurists have absolutely believed in the proof of the death penalty for doubts about prophethood, their documents do not have the ability to prove their claim. Rather, in case of the title of apostasy being applied to the one with doubts about prophethood, he can be sentenced to the prescribed legal limits. Otherwise, the Islamic government must take the necessary and appropriate measures to remove doubts.

Through examination in the jurisprudential texts one can find that most Imami jurists believe the hadd of murder for adultery between a non-Muslim and a Muslim woman can be proved. However, some of the later ones have considered the mentioned ruling as a ruling for reflection and have stopped on the issue. According to most jurists' viewpoints, the lawgiver has considered adultery of a non-Muslim man with a Muslim woman as one of the cases that hadd of murder is obligatory in Article 224 of the Islamic Penal Code. The importance of bloods in the Islamic holy law made the writers re-examine the arguments of the fatwa in question. For this purpose, in the present article, which is organized in a descriptive-analytical method and by referring to library sources, after expressing the viewpoints of the jurists, analyzes and examines the arguments of most jurists. In the end, it was concluded that due to the weakness of documents of the mentioned arguments, considering a non-Muslim as deserved to be killed for committing adultery with a Muslim woman is against the principle of protecting peoples' lives and bloods. Therefore, the best thing to do is to analyze the punishment of such a person in the light of other Shariah arguments and to consider an appropriate punishment for this act.

The attribution of infidelity or Islam to religious dissidents has been one of the most important issues that has always preoccupied Muslim thinkers. The present research, using a problem based approach, has made a pervasive inquiry into the jurisprudential texts and has extracted at least three views in this respect. The results of the research indicate that although the theory of absolute infidelity of religious opponents is observed in the opinions of some Shi'a Akhbari jurists, this view does not have a strong support and a significant number of jurists have distinguished between the obstinate and non-obstinate opponent and also between a negligent and guilty opponent. They hold that the attribution of infidelity to religious opponents, assuming their lack of guiltiness and stubbornness, has no justification and is controversial. The present study, by adopting a descriptive-analytical method, has counted the existing statements and has measured and evaluated the documents of each of the views. Finally, it has found the recent view in accordance with the Imamiyyah criteria.

The rule of "AL-'Ibrah Bi 'Umum AL-Lafzi La Bi Khusus Al-Sababi" is one of the rules of principles of jurisprudence (Usul) that is accepted by the majority of jurists. According to this rule, if a Shari'a ruling is issued generally or particularly on a specific reason, the ruling is generalized to other cases relying on the generality or particularity of the word. However, there are some other opinions in this regard. Using a descriptive-analytical method, the authors of this study aim at examining the existing statements in this regard and explaining the various aspects of this subject. The results of the study indicate that if the ruling issued on a specific case bears a positive generality its generality is valid, but if the ruling issued bears an absolute generality, the absoluteness of the reason as a specific indication prevents from its overall generality and the ruling is assigned to the specific reason.

The taste of Shari'a, which refers to the style and context of the Shari'ah in forging rulings, and includes the basic criteria of Shari'a in legislating and forging laws, is one of the matters considered by jurists in deriving and evaluating rulings. The purpose of the study is to explain the examples of the taste of Sharia in Imami jurisprudence and to clarify the basic criteria of Sharia in the matter of legislation with an approach to the life of Imam Reza (AS) and the opinions and speeches of the Supreme Leader.

This study has been conducted using a descriptive-analytical method based on library resources.

The findings of the research indicate that the most definite principles considered by the legislator in forging rulings are: 1. Observance of expediency. 2. Being rational. 3. Being fair. 4. Observe facilitation and easiness. 5. Do not provoke emotions and prevent conflict.

From the study of the narrations of Imam Reza (AS) and his practical life, it was obtained that he has referred to the examples of the taste of Shari'a in several hadiths and has always tried to act according to the style and context accepted by the Shari'a. Considering the statements of the Supreme Leader, it was also found that the taste of Sharia has a special place in his thought; In such a way that each of the mentioned criteria has been reflected many times in his speeches and referendums and has been considered by him in various fields.

one of the challenges that sharia is facing is the claim that Islam has a biased view towards men's rights. and there is gender discrimination against women in Islamic law. The claimants have tried to justify their theory by presenting examples of jurisprudential rulings that at first seem to be discriminatory. In order to respond to this challenge in the field of criminal law, the Islamic legal system in the field of legislation to punish guilty women has been explained. This study has been conducted using a descriptive-analytical method and after explaining the moral principles of legislation to punish guilty women in Islamic jurisprudence, women's specific criminal sentences in the field of public disclosure, expulsion, homosexuality, apostasy, the quality of the Hadd, the place of detention and delay in punishment in special circumstances have been stated. It,s found that the legislation of punishment for women in Islam is based on the two principles: a dignified view of women and the observance of justice. it is found that Islamic Criminal law not only does not have a biased view of men but it can be seen from some of the rulings that this law seeks to facilitate and mitigate punishment for women. The purpose of the study is to show that differences and distinctions in the rulings don't indicate that the rulings of the Shari'a are discriminatory; rather, what can be acknowledged is that some Shari'a rulings are different between men and women because they differ in biological and psychological characteristics.

In Islamic jurisprudence, the legitimacy of the testimony of a branch, which means testimony on martyrdom, is a definite matter; However, there are differences of opinion among the jurists regarding some aspects of this issue; Among the disputes is the validity of women's testimony in sub-testimony. Famous people have considered the impermissibility of women's martyrdom over another's martyrdom, and on the contrary, some jurists, led by Sheikh Tusi and Allameh, believe in the validity of women's martyrdom in positions that are evident from the main examples. It is like a debt in which the testimony of the original women is accepted. In the present article, after examining and searching the documents of the famous and opposite quotations, it is explained that none of the arguments of the two views, whose main argument was based on consensus and narrations on the subject of martyrdom, can prove the claim against Regarding the testimony of women, it is necessary to refer to the principle that according to the generalities and applications of the influence and validity of evidence, the principle is permissible for women to testify, and considering the lack of valid reason for leaving the testimony of women from this principle, Contrary to popular belief, women's testimony is permissible.