فهرست مطالب batoul salahshour

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.

Many of the hadiths discussed in jurisprudence express specific events. The permissibility or impermissibility of generalizing the rulings given in this type of hadiths to other cases is an issue that has caused differences of opinion in many jurisprudential rulings. It is abundantly observed that some jurists have considered a hadith to be "Qaḍīyyah fī waqi'ah" and the ruling given in it to be specific to the case of the hadith, and others have considered the ruling to be generalizable to other cases. The study, using a descriptive-analytical method, investigates that regarding the permissibility or impermissibility of generalizing the rulings on specific cases given in Hadiths what the principle and general rule is. The results show that in the hadiths related to specific events, when the ruling is given in a general way, according to the rule of "Al-'Ibrah bi 'umūm-i al-lafẓ lā bi khuṣūṣ al-sabab", the principle is to generalize the ruling, otherwise, due to the brevity of these hadiths and the lack of cause of generality, as well as due to the weakness of the evidence to prove the permissibility of generalization, the principle is that the ruling is specific to the case stated in the hadith and cannot be generalized.

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.

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.