فهرست مطالب ashkan naeimi

The significant point regarding the proof of non-sexual hudud (pandering, qadhf, wine drinking, theft, muharebeh, insulting the prophet Muhammad, magic, and irtidad) is whether two confessions are required or merely one confession is sufficient? Is there a general rule regarding the above hudud, or the rules vary from one hadd to another? This argument can be presented in two aspects: general evidence for all the hudud, and particular evidence for each one of the hudud. In general evidence, apart from Al-dar’ (the prevention rule), there is no valid reason that necessitates two confessions or suffices one confession. Al-dar’ can also be useful in case of doubt and if there is no evidence to remove doubts. The particular evidence is also not valid for the above cases, yet there are some traditions with respect to theft that if their reputation can make up for their lack of validity, then two confessions are required. Thus, it is possible to resort to priority analogy in those hudud that are severe than theft, but if the above reasoning is not accepted, it is not possible to act accordingly. Finally, most fuqahā's fatwas imply that there must be two confessions and one confession cannot be sufficient in removing the doubts and Al-dar’ rule necessitates two confessions in all the mentioned hudud.

Wearing Hijab is one of the examples of religion and it is one of the most important duties of the Islamic government that taking any approach about it has different effects on the society and government. This analytical-documentary research was conducted with the purpose of investigating jurisprudentially the responsibility of the Islamic government to the issue of Hijab regarding some concepts such as the lack of Tanajjoz, lack of acceptance, order of corruptions, lack of influence, and lack of social satisfaction. The results showed that none of them relieves the responsibility of the Islamic government to Hijab. The Islamic government must stand against not wearing Hijab and that kind of Hijab that has corruptions for the society by both providing the conditions of enjoining good and forbidding evil, concerning with the Tanajjoz of duty by guiding the ignorant people, and preparing the influence of Hijab in the society, as an obligatory introduction, in a region whose people acknowledge that as a good issue. It is necessary to take advantage of tools, implementation methods, and punishments that are appropriate to cultural differences in order to prevent conflict between the expediency of the obligation to wear Hijab and other expediencies.

According to the first principle, intentional murderer is sentenced to retribution but in Islamic Sharia, the ruling of retribution depends on certain conditions so that the non-fulfillment of which is regarded as exception of this matter. One of these exceptions is the case that the murderer is the victim’s father. The religious experts have consensus regarding the ruling of non- retribution when the victim’s father is the supposed murderer, but the issue of whether the ruling of non- retribution is specific to the father and paternal ancestor or such exception covers the mother’s side or not is a matter of dispute. The Imamiah Jurists make a distinction between retribution of murderous father and murderous mother. Article 301 of the Islamic Penal Code (approved in 2013) followed the same popular opinion and excluded the victom's murderous father from retribution decree while the murderous mother is sentenced to retribution in the same case. In contrast, Ibn Joneid and Sunni schools of jurisprudence other than Māleki, consider the rule of non- retribution to the murderous mother as well as the murderous father. This article with descriptive and analytical method, aims to prove the theory that the murderous mother like the murderous father is similarly exception from the non-retribution decree.

When two legal addresses are not in conflict in the legislative stage, but in the implementation stage of the law, there is a contradiction between them, it is interpreted as conflict. The fundamentalists refer to antagonism as a form of retaliation. In their terminology, the contradiction between two rulings arising from the impossibility of combining the two in the position of obedience is called antagonism. The way out of antagonism is that if one of the two antagonizing precepts is preferable to the other, the intellect will give preference to it, otherwise the intellect 'ruling is a choice in doing one of two things. To express the criterion of preference, the fundamentalists have mentioned preferences such as having a substitute, giving conditionally to rational power over conditional to religious power, the priority of the important over the important and the temporal precedence, which will be examined in a descriptive and analytical manner and library tools. Took. The results indicate that the acceptance of the domain of these preferences by the fundamentalists is associated with differences.

Environment has attracted so much attention recently. Misuse and increasing rate of environmental damaging activities have raised serious concern on current and future life of man. Thus it is necessary to scrutinize environmental issues from Islamic Jurisprudence point of view. Referring to the Quran, Hadiths, and logic, we can infer that all human beings have the right to enjoy a healthy environment. It is argued that religious resources make all human beings take care of the environment. Therefore, believers are obliged to respect others’ right in use of the environment and possession, and damaging the environment is religiously prohibited. Since encroaching on people’s right to enjoy a healthy environment is an instance of oppression, this issue is referred as intergenerational justice in the use of the environment.