فهرست مطالب javad soltani fard

One of the conditions mentioned for the person who is commanded to do good and is prohibited from doing evil is the condition of reaching the religious maturity age, which means whether a person who is commanded to do good and prohibited from doing evil must have reached the age of religious maturity or not. There are five theories about this issue. Imam Khomeini offers a new approach to this issue: Although a religiously immature person is commanded to do good and prohibited from doing evil – the Legislator never approves of doing evil or leaving good by anybody – this commanding the good and prohibiting the evil is not within the category of the religious decree of commanding the good and prohibiting the evil, rather it is because of the Legislator’s emphasis on doing or leaving certain acts. The data was collected from the texts on different approaches to this issue and their arguments were analyzed through descriptive-analytical method. The findings of the research show that firstly, the age of maturity is the condition for the person who is commanded to do the good and prohibited from doing evil. Secondly, the reasons for asking the religiously immature persons to do the good and avoid evil in some cases are just educational and not necessarily jurisprudential and in some other cases they are related to the encroachment upon the people’s rights that children are prohibited from doing it.

In the rapidly evolving landscape of digital technology, the emergence of blockchain and cryptocurrencies has presented new challenges and questions for religious jurisprudence. Among these, the practice of cryptocurrency mining has sparked debates concerning its conformity with Islamic laws, particularly in light of similarities drawn between mining activities and gambling [Ghomar] — a concept well-defined and often condemned in Islamic teachings. This paper aims to explore the intricate dynamics of cryptocurrency mining within the framework of Imamia Jurisprudence, scrutinizing whether the practice bears the hallmarks of gambling, as traditionally understood within the Sharia. Given the profound impact of digital currencies on global financial systems and the ethical considerations they raise, this investigation seeks to elucidate the religious standings on cryptocurrency mining, thereby guiding adherents in their engagement with this modern financial phenomenon.

Research Question:

The core inquiry of this study revolves around the assessment of cryptocurrency mining through the lens of Imamia Jurisprudence: "Does the process of cryptocurrency mining align with the characteristics of gambling as defined by Islamic law, thereby rendering it prohibited. This question seeks to unravel the ethical and religious implications of mining activities, which involve significant financial investment in competition for a potentially lucrative reward, mirroring aspects of chance and speculation akin to gambling.

Research Hypothesis:

This paper hypothesizes that despite superficial similarities between cryptocurrency mining and gambling—such as the reliance on chance, competitive investment, and the potential for monetary gain without traditional labor—there are fundamental differences that could distinguish mining activities from gambling under Imamia Jurisprudence. These differences hinge on the intentions behind mining, the nature of effort and investment involved, and the broader economic implications of cryptocurrency within Islamic ethical frameworks. The hypothesis posits that a nuanced understanding of these factors may reveal that cryptocurrency mining does not inherently constitute gambling and thus may not be universally deemed haram within an Islamic context.

Methodology & Framework, if Applicable:

To address the research question and test the hypothesis, this study adopts a descriptive analytical methodology, underpinned by a qualitative framework that involves the examination of primary and secondary sources within Islamic jurisprudence. The research will delve into the canonical texts, fatwas, and scholarly interpretations that define gambling from an Imamia perspective, subsequently applying these criteria to the process of cryptocurrency mining. Through comparative analysis, the study will identify the parallels and distinctions between mining and gambling, considering factors such as the element of risk, the role of skill versus chance, and the societal and economic contributions of cryptocurrency mining. This methodological approach allows for a comprehensive assessment of the subject matter, grounded in the rich tradition of Islamic legal scholarship while engaging with the contemporary implications of digital finance.

The research meticulously dissected the characteristics traditionally associated with gambling within Islamic jurisprudence and juxtaposed these with the intrinsic elements of cryptocurrency mining. This comparative analysis yielded several critical insights, underscoring the distinct nature of cryptocurrency mining from gambling. Key findings include:     Rational benefit and ecosystem contribution: cryptocurrency mining was found to offer tangible benefits to the digital currency ecosystem, enhancing security and facilitating transactions. This utility and contribution render it distinct from gambling activities, which lack productive output or societal benefit.
     Nature of rewards: unlike gambling, where stakes are placed with the possibility of total loss or gain based on chance, cryptocurrency mining rewards are not predicated on the loss of another but are rewards for computational efforts contributed to the network.
     Financial risk and effort: the research clarified that the financial investment in mining does not equate to wagering since it involves expenditure towards productive work with inherent value, differentiating it from the speculative risk in gambling.
     Competition and intent: the competitive aspect of mining does not inherently signify gambling, as it lacks the direct adversarial win-lose scenario typical of gambling. Instead, mining competition is more akin to market competition, where success does not necessitate another's loss.
     Investment and loss: the argument that miners face a total loss in the absence of rewards was countered by the understanding that investments in mining infrastructure and operations constitute business expenses rather than gambles, with inherent value and potential for future gains.
     Chance versus effort: The role of chance in mining does not align with the gambling criterion of reliance on pure luck, as mining involves significant preparatory effort, investment, and an ongoing contribution to network maintenance.
     These findings collectively argue against the classification of cryptocurrency mining as gambling within the framework of Imamia Jurisprudence, highlighting the nuanced understanding required to evaluate modern financial technologies through the lens of traditional religious law.

The exhaustive investigation into the parallels between gambling characteristics and cryptocurrency mining concluded a significant divergence between the two under Imamia Jurisprudence. The research established that cryptocurrency mining does not embody the essential elements of gambling, namely, reliance on chance, direct financial wagering, and lack of productive contribution. Instead, mining is characterized by its integral role in the maintenance and security of the blockchain network, necessitating significant effort, investment, and skill.
     However, the conclusion that mining does not equate to gambling does not automatically confer legitimacy on all aspects of cryptocurrency operations within an Islamic context. The research underscores the need for further scholarly examination on other concerns related to cryptocurrency, such as the legitimacy of earnings and the intrinsic value of digital currencies.
     In essence, this study not only clarifies the position of cryptocurrency mining in relation to gambling within Imamia Jurisprudence but also opens avenues for further research into the broader ethical and economic implications of cryptocurrencies. It serves as a foundational piece for ongoing dialogue and exploration in the intersection of technology, finance, and religious ethics, emphasizing the importance of informed, nuanced scholarship in addressing contemporary issues through the lens of traditional jurisprudence.

Recourse from contract termination refers to the ability of a person who terminates a contract to subsequently regret their decision and revoke the termination, thereby reinstating the contract. This research, conducted through an analytical-descriptive method and relying on library sources, explores the nature of the right to terminate and its distinction from the right of recourse from termination. To establish the prohibition of such recourse, even if it may be supported with caution, this study cites principles such as "what is void cannot be revived," "the prohibition of benefiting from void property," "dominion," "the disappearance of the effects of termination after its establishment," and, most importantly, the principle of "the primacy of necessity in contracts." Additionally, it argues against the existence of valid reasons for allowing recourse from the right to terminate, while critically examining opposing arguments. It is suggested that recourse (revocation) from contract termination presents both jurisprudential and legal challenges, leading to practical complications and increased disorder in contracts, resulting in an escalation of lawsuits, as well as certain societal costs.

Doubts about the "Taklifee" ruling and not finding the "Amareh" is the way to adhere to the practical principle in order to remove the surprise in the position of action. Subjects of practical principles may be accompanied by necessary, accompanying or required, whether Sharee or non-Shariee and whether direct or indirect. The scope and validity of each of these are examined in the principles of jurisprudence under the title of "Mosbet" principle. Regarding the validity of the "Mosbet" principle, there is a difference of opinion among the scholars. The scholars of the principles that do not consider the "Mosbet"  principle to be a proof have insisted on it for reasons, the most important of which is the existence of conflict; This means that the "Mosbet"  principle can prove non-Sharee works (rational or normal works) for  what it  indicates, which in this case, is in conflict with the principle of the absence of said works. Some scholars do not consider the "Mosbet"  principle to be valid and authentic due to the existence of such an obstacle. On the other hand, some like Sheikh Ansari believe in the "Hokumat". From his point of view, basically, there is no conflict in the issue that can be used to invalidate the " Mosbet" principle. In this article, while examining and criticizing the existing views with an analytical method, the conclusion has been reached that the issue under discussion cannot be definitively considered as an example of conflict or "Hokumat", but in a new classification," Tafsi"  must be belived; In this way, some examples of it are examples of conflict according to some bases, and some examples are examples of "Hokumat" based on other bases. Therefore, it is not possible to deny the validity of the "Mosbet" principle by insisting on the problem of conflict.

Today, the occurrence of emerging phenomena in technology calls jurists to make a double effort in order to adapt them to jurisprudence issues and regularize them when encountering those issues. One of these technologies is the mining of "Cryptocurrency". Due to its basic similarity with "Je'aleh (a promise of something of value given by a promissor in exchange for something of value given by a promisee)", in this study, the compliance evaluation of cryptocurrency mining with the rules, pillars and conditions of je'aleh has been examined. Analytical studies show that the current general request issued by the cryptocurrency system designer can be considered "Ja'il (the promissor)" and it can be applied to general Je'aleh. In addition, the reward of mining cryptocurrency can be considered as "Jo'al", the solution and the purpose of rationality, and the miner as an "agent". The "action" in cryptocurrency mining is known and clear and is done through CPU, GPU and ASIC. The only problem of compliance evaluation is manifested in the qualification of possession of "Ja'il"; it is not possible to fulfill this condition due to the anonymity of "Satoshi Nakamoto" - the creator of cryptocurrency." Unless the customary impossibility of designing cryptocurrency by a lunatic and a child and the high cost of its design proves that the creator is not financially isolated. It should be noted that the compatibility of cryptocurrency mining with Ja'ala does not mean its legitimacy, but in this regard, there are still problems such as the taxation of cryptocurrency as well as the superficiality of their mining, which should be examined in other studies.

The mosbet principle is an usuli debate with many functions, which most of the late usulists have raised in the considerations of the principle of estes'hab, and they have disagreed about its validity. mostashab can have non-Shari'ah (rational or normal) requirements with it, which proving  each of these external matters depends on the validity of the mosbet principle. The opposing point of view of the validity of mosbet principle ​​is that only direct Shari'ah matters can apply to mostahab.Usulists do not even agree with each other in defining the mosbet principle; Therefore, before any discussion about the validity of the mosbet principle, it is necessary to define its conceptual limits precisely and after verifying the most important definitions in this field, a comprehensive definition of the said principle should be provided. Using the analytical method, this research achieves these findings that firstly, along with rational and normal media, accidental media can also be included among the mosbets of mostashab; Secondly, in the process of the mosbet principle, in addition to the subject, mostas'hab can be a ruling, both taklifi and vaz'iee; Thirdly, the application of the mosbet principle is basically not exclusive to estes'hab, and this principle can apply to other non-verbal principles as well.

Verses 31 to 33 of sure 38 of the Quran narrate the story of Prophet Solomon and the jihad horses. Those verses are interpreted by various exegetes so differently some of which are in direct contradiction to the innocence of Prophet Solomon. Such disagreement on the interpretation of verses is basically caused by exegetes' opinions on to what the pronouns in the verses refer. Having gathered opinions of the exegetes on the verses, surveyed them all in detail, and used an analogical method, this essay comes to the conclusion that no wrongdoing can be attributed to Solomon in that event. On the other hand, the traditions narrated in this connection suffer direct contradiction to the intellect, the basic teachings of the Quran, and the grounded, sound hadiths in addition to suffering lack of sound chain of transmission. They are, in fact, rooted in unacceptable stories penetrated from Jewish sources to Muslim books.

The Mujtahid (master jurist), after doubting in Ḥukm Taklīfī (defining law) and not finding ʼImārah (indication leading to a speculative reasoning), unavoidably performs practical principles to relieve confusion. Subjects which are the place of performance of practical principles may have with them inherent, implicant and attendant whether they are legal or non-legal or direct or indirect. In principles of Jurisprudence, the scope and validity of each of these cases is examined under the title of Muthbit Principle. Considering logical order, before discussing on validity this principle, one must first be introduced to the concept of Muthbit Principle and determine its scope as well. With a brief view at the provided definitions for Muthbit Principle by Usuli scholars, it can be clearly seen the essential difference between each of those definitions. Having used the analytical method, this study counted and criticized various definitions of Muthbit Principle. Finally, a comprehensive definition which can include all components of said principle has been provided. Muthbit Principle is a principle that, in order to achieve the legal ruling, seeks to prove inherent or non-legal intermediates, implicant or legal attendant which is arranged on legal and non-legal intermediates. So, legal intermediates which follow legal effects will also be a Muthbit Principle.

Contrary to the prevailing current in the science of rijāl, al-Shaykh al-Ṭūsī used the phrase asnada ‘anhu in the biography of over 300 companions of al-Imām al-Ṣādiq (A.S.) as well as a few companions of other Imāms without giving any explanation of what he meant by it while such phrase cannot be seen in any other Shiite book on rijāl―except for a few that followed Shaykh in this regard. Despite that, some hold that this phrase conveys trustworthiness and praiseworthiness of the transmitter. Since that phrase is used by Shaykh in several cases, it seems necessary to evaluate all opinions stated with regard to the meaning of it first, and find out whether it can convey trustworthiness of the transmitter secondly. Taking an analytical approach, this essay finds that, firstly, there is no incontrovertible evidence to determine any of those stated opinions with regard to the phrase asnada ‘anhu and Shaykh, himself, is the only one who knows what he has meant by it, and, secondly, that phrase can in no way convey authenticity―let alone praiseworthiness―of the transmitter.

The way adhan and iqama were legitimized is among major matters of disputes between Shi’ites and Sunnis. Considering the well-known Sunni perspective that adhan and iqama were legitimized through dream of a certain ‘Abd Allah b. Zayd in an unrevealed way, a question raises whether legitimization of divine precepts through intermediation of ordinary people is acceptable.
Discussing how adhan and iqama were legitimized from the Sunnis perspective and evaluating the proofs argued in this connection, the present essay comes to the conclusion that believing in an unrevealed cause for their legitimization is in opposition to both intellectual and narrative proofs. In addition to suffering inauthentic chains of transmission, the proofs argued for that claim are in explicit contradiction to one another.