ehsan ahangari

The sale of military weapons to foreigners, which is considered in jurisprudence as the sale of weapons to the enemies of religion, has been the focus of jurists since the beginning of the formation of jurisprudence. Regarding its permissibility or non-permissibility, some have attributed up to eight opinions to the twelvers jurists, of which three are the most important. A group that believes in absolute sanctity has issued a fatwa, a group has distinguished between a state of peace and a state of war, and has ruled that the former is permissible and the latter is sacred. Each of the above two groups have based their views on narrations. And the third point of view is the view that Imam Khomeini had on the issue, and based on his government approach, he considered this issue to be subject to the opinion of the Islamic government, which should take a position based on the general interests of the society, and in cases where the sale of these weapons is expedient, it is permissible to sell them. And in cases where there is corruption involved, selling it is forbidden. Therefore, neither peace nor war is the subject of judgment. On this basis, there is a difference between the jurists regarding the status of the issue, and the more correct view is that this transaction is null and void if it is legally forbidden.

The sale of military weapons to foreigners, which is considered in jurisprudence as the sale of weapons to the enemies of religion, has been the focus of jurists since the beginning of the formation of jurisprudence. Regarding its permissibility or non-permissibility, some have attributed up to eight opinions to the twelvers jurists, of which three are the most important. A group that believes in absolute sanctity has issued a fatwa, a group has distinguished between a state of peace and a state of war, and has ruled that the former is permissible and the latter is sacred. Each of the above two groups have based their views on narrations. And the third point of view is the view that Imam Khomeini had on the issue, and based on his government approach, he considered this issue to be subject to the opinion of the Islamic government, which should take a position based on the general interests of the society, and in cases where the sale of these weapons is expedient, it is permissible to sell them. And in cases where there is corruption involved, selling it is forbidden. Therefore, neither peace nor war is the subject of judgment. On this basis, there is a difference between the jurists regarding the status of the issue, and the more correct view is that this transaction is null and void if it is legally forbidden.

Judicial security can be understood as the existence of a judicial organization that guarantees a fair trial for the general public so that people do not have to worry about their rights being violated in court. The realization of this concept depends on the existence of many elements within the judicial organization, the most important of which is judicial independence. Judicial independence must also be achieved in two areas; The first is the independence of the judiciary and the second is the independence of the judge. The present article examines for the first time the relationship between the realization of judicial security and the structural and administrative independence of the judiciary from the perspective of Islamic law. This study shows that the independence of the judiciary as one of the basic indicators of judicial security, although due to the absence of the issue in the age of the Innocents has not been explicitly the subject of Islamic law, but the goals of Islamic law in our time are appropriate to achieve independence. It is the judiciary.

Shari'a cases have been considered by scholars of the principles of jurisprudence from different perspectives. One of these qualities is the addressee and the subject that this address has addressed to him. According to the popular view, any address that addresses a general issue such as "people" or "those who believe" is dissolved according to the number of people to whom this title applies, and this general address is in its infinite personal power. Imam Khomeini did not accept this analysis and rejected it with regard to the way legislative councils legislate. In this way, he believes that the general and legal address remains at the same level of generality and is not dissolved into personal speeches. This view has many effects on the principles and jurisprudence. In this article, we have analyzed the most important effects of this view on the jurisprudence of transactions.

Since the Islamic jurisprudence is the most important determinant of the necessity or non-necessity of governmental behavior in Islamic jurisprudence, this article intends to examine one of the most important political actions, namely electoral participation, from a jurisprudential perspective. In this regard, we have first considered this action in terms of "right" and "duty" and have shown that people have the right to govern in order to provide them with a platform for political participation. In the next step, once the right is exercised, it is imperative for the people to participate in this context, the most important of which is to be present in the present election. To prove this claim, we refer to the religious texts and sources of jurisprudence with a jurisprudential approach, and we have therefore focused on three main reasons which include: 1. the necessity of maintaining the system and maintaining its authority, 2. the position of caliphate and the responsibility of the people, 3. Authorities in the Al-Faragh area.