فهرست مطالب mansoor gharibpour

According to the popular opinion, the effect of the prerequisites of hikmat (wisdom) in tamasok (seeking) is one of the wide-ranging fundamental issues after the era of Sultan Ulama. According to Akhund Khorasani's point of view, one of the prerequisites of the hikmat is to adhere to the etlagh (application), qadr moteyaghan and methods of discovering and understanding it. qadr moteyaghan is a person or a part of the motlagh (applied) that is definitely within the scope of the ruling. By dividing qadr moteyaghan into two types : qadr moteyaghan in the position of takhatob (communication) that is internal and external qadr moteyaghan, Akhund has considered qadr moteyaghan in the position of takhatob as an obstacle to application, but some usulists have not made a difference between the types of qadr moteyaghan in regard to application. After a detailed analysis of the types of qadr moteyaghan, this essay aims to answer this important question: What is the necessity of researching and applying the basic rules regarding the validity and authenticity of qadr moteyaghan, as well as its priority to adhere to its application, and how is this qadr moteyaghan discovered? In this research, by analytical and descriptive method, by examining different points of view and with special reliance on the opinions of Imam Khomeini and Martyr Sadr, the conclusion has been reached that, first of all, the implementation of the principles of hekmat is a consensus matter for the wise. Secondly, qadr moteyaghan does not prevent application to both of its types, and in fact, the primacy of qadr moteyaghan goes back to the fact that the speaker is in the position of communicating and qadr moteyaghan does not prevent application until it reaches the point of apparent enseraf (reffering to something), and as if in the statement of Akund Khorasani the meaning of the word on the bounded essence is confused with the description of a share that contains a certain attribute and the word that indicates the limitation of this attribute and its involvement in the subject of the ruling. Thirdly, knowing qadr moteyaghan is obtained in the customary way, with the help of the appropriateness of the ruling and the subject, and sometimes by using verbal clues.

Testimony is one of the evidences for proving a case to court which has been accepted by all legal systems. Testifying is sometimes between Muslims against each others, Muslims against unbelievers, unbelievers against Muslims and unbelievers against unbelievers. According to the Islamic jurisprudential proofs, Muslim’s testimony in relation to unbelievers is accepted but unbeliever’s testimony in relation to Muslims is unaccepted in the civil cases based on the Quranic and hadith proofs and evidences. Therefore, in Imamiyah fiqh, it is rejected the generality of unbeliever’s testimony in legal matters against or on behalf of Muslims and according to the evidences it is not valid. But unbeliever’s testimony in relation to Muslim in the case of wills (testaments) is proved by the Quranic and hadith proofs. Islamic jurists with adducing to the mentioned proofs have only accepted unbeliever’s testimony in Muslims’ wills. But adducing the generality of some of the Quran verses is vitiated and also the universality of which has been expressed by some hadiths the study concludes that unbelievers with conditions not only in wills but also in some other cases can testify. Therefore, in this note with studying and criticizing the proofs of non-acceptance of unbeliever’s testimony in cases other than wills and the proofs of permissibility of the acceptance of dhimmīs’ testimony (Arabic: ذمی literally: protected people) in the issue of wills, it has examined and analyzed the possibility of generalizing unbelievers testimony to cases other than will and at the end with using the reason resulted from Islamic traditions, the definite (certain) tanqih al-manat (to extract the absolute or certain reason of hukm and extend to the similar cases) and a fortiori analog -qiyās- (Arabic: قیاس اولویت‎) with analytic-inferring method, it has been reasoned the possibility of generality out.

In these days, when infectious and contagious Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has invaded society and the world, in addition to health problems for individuals and governments, many other aspects, including legal jurisprudential challenges, can be considered. Examples in this regard include the guarantee of sovereignty in loss of life, property, economic and health conflict, the application of the rule of kindness, quarantine and restriction of liberty, national security and retaliation, psychological security, and so on. Accordingly, the present study has been conducted in a specific way to examine some challenges and consequences of related legal jurisprudence, the arguments regarding the responsibility (obligation and status) of the government, and its theoretical framework.

In this article, the legal jurisprudential consequences of this contagious disease, in proportion to the present time and place and the need to produce and pay the rules of legal jurisprudence, have been considered to adequately explain the issue (Islamic jurisprudence view on infectious diseases and government responsibility). Considerable evidence of validity and abundant jurisprudential opinions have been examined using descriptive-analytical methods and library sources.

In this study, while examining and refining the jurisprudential issue of infectious diseases (according to some recent views on the conflict between jurisprudence and science) based on sources, evidence, and legal jurisprudential rules governing the duties and responsibilities of the government, described, analyzed and evaluated and with a new division and interpretation and a new look at the verses and hadiths and legal jurisprudential evidence, the duty and general responsibility, as well as the special responsibility of the government (in case of a negative or positive cause that can be cited and creates guarantee and damage), has been proven.