فهرست مطالب mohammad taqi fakhlaei

Two of the commonly used terms in the fields of jurisprudence and ʾUṣūl regarding the legitimacy of rulings are Muwlavī (authoritative) or Irshādī (directive/guiding). Despite the fact that the term Irshādī is used frequently in ʾUṣūlī and jurisprudential texts, an independent discussion about the meaning of this term has not been carried out, which has led to confusion and lack of clarity regarding related this issue. Through and exploration of various discussions and contexts in jurisprudential and ʾUṣūlī books, it was concluded that the terms Muwlavī or Irshādī have found common verbal usage among various meanings. These include the following: 1. Guiding (Irshād) towards a legislative ruling (ḥukm-i vażʿī) 2. Guiding towards divine Sharīʿa rulings as opposed to the ruling of a governmental authority (Muwlavī) 3. Worldly benevolence regardless of afterlife impact 4. Guiding towards understanding reason in discovering Sharīʿa rulings 5. Guiding towards the conduct of the wise (Banā-yi ʿUqalā) in assuming its independence in discovering the Sharīʿa ruling 6. Stating the ruling precedent or subsequent to the establishment of Sharīʿa ruling.The study concludes that each Sharīʿa ruling may be considered Irshādī according to one meaning, and Muwlavī according to another.

The way in which kur and qalil water become impure has a significant impact on human daily life. There are various and conflicting narrations regarding this matter. Two methods have been proposed to resolve the conflicts and reach a final ruling in this regard. According to the well-known method of assessing conflicting evidence, five different and sometimes conflicting rulings have been obtained on the issue mentioned, and the conflict between the extracted rulings is a problem for this group of jurists. However, according to the theory of proportional revolution, there are more than ten different types of probability assessments between the evidence, each of which leads to different results. Therefore, the problem with this method is the preference of one of the proportional assessments over the others. However, it is possible to overcome this problem by using the rules extracted for the preference of different proportional assessments, and the result of accepting the theory of proportional revolution has been well demonstrated in the branch of jurisprudence discussed. Therefore, in the present study, by analyzing and comparing three proposed models in one of the jurisprudential branches entitled the impurity of kur and qalil water, we have demonstrated the differences between the mentioned methods and for the first time systematically aligned it with the theory of proportional revolution and revealed the surprising results of this type of assessment between conflicting evidence. The impurity of qalil water in case of changing one of the three attributes and the lack of impurity of kur water, except in the case of changing the title of water, are among the results of this method.

Hypnosis is a multidimensional reality whose clinical psychological dimension, namely hypnotherapy and hypnoanalysis, has received more attention and the mind control and deprivation of the subject has been neglected and even denied. The introduction of Islamic jurisprudence and law in this field and the study of the nature of hypnosis and its effect in formation of criminal acts and how to punish such acts is an essential need. Accordingly, the present study has been written with the aim of analyzing the legal jurisprudential dimensions of the role of hypnosis or in other words, hypnotic trance in committing criminal acts and how to punish them in such crimes.

This descriptive-analytical resrarch uses the library method and fishing tools and tries to analyze the nature of hypnosis and its effect in formation of criminal acts and how to punish them, as well as some important examples of hypnotic crimes such as theft, murder and rape through hypnosis.

The findings suggest that degrees four or higher in hypnotic trance in which unrealistic indoctrination is possible, if they have a non-therapeutic (criminal) function, correspond to the components of magic. The three major types of hypnotic crimes are hypnotic murder, hypnotic rape, and stealing people's property through hypnosis. In all these cases, if the subject is involuntary, the crime will not be documented to him and the hypnotist will be responsible and punished, but if the subject presents himself to the hypnotist with the intention of committing the crime in a trance state, he will be criminally liable and punished. If the subject is the victim or the victim of a hypnotic crime, the hypnotist is considered the perpetrator.

According to the generalities and absolutes of jurisprudential arguments, the tooth has also Qisas (can be retaliated) like other parts of the human body. However, equality or inequality of place in qisas of teeth has been the subject of controversy among Imamiyah jurists. On the one hand, most of jurists believe that in case a person's tooth is pulled out as a result of a crime, equality in place is a condition for proving qisas, and on the other hand, few jurists do not consider equality in place as a condition for proving qisas and without paying attention to the need for equality in place, they have considered the mere existence of an example to be sufficient. Most of the arguments in proving their claim are referring to the verse "al-Sin bi al-Sin " which means a tooth for a tooth,  (Surah Ma'idah, 45) and some narrations, as well as relying on consensus of the jurists. The present study, after examining the arguments presented, has concluded that the jurists' reliance to the previously mentioned verse is incomplete. Contrary to their reliance, the referring to the above verse confirms the unpopular views of jurists. The referred narration also has weakness of the document and the claimed consensus is also subject to evidence. Therefore, the present paper proves the unpopular view by rejecting the arguments of most jurists, generalities, and absolutes in the issue.

Conducting the principles of human relations is one of the subjects which has been highly noted from the first days of the advent of Islām. Obviously, Muslims—Non-Muslim's relations is part of this broad area. These relations supported by rational and narrative reasoning are based upon principles like "Justice" and "No-Domination for Unbelievers Over Believers (No Way Principle)." Some scholars, with regard to certain narrative arguments e.g. Islām's Supremacy have noted the positive side of this principle alongside the negative side. These scholars hold that codifying Islāmic international relations should be established in a manner that supremacy of Muslims preserves. It seems that this interpretation of the Principle of "No way" challenges the Principle of Justice as the most basic foundation of the Islāmic international relations. This essay, by criticizing the current juridical interpretation, and aligned with the concept of International Justice, presents a new interpretation of the "No Way Principle".

The legal status of contracts with illegal purpose is one of the most important issues raised in law and Islamic jurisprudence which in different legal systems is analyzed under the topic of motive. As far as this issue is concerned, three situations have been distinguished in Iranian law: The first situation is where the illegal purpose has entered the contractual scope, the second is where the illegal purpose is merely in the mind of one contracting party, and the last situation is where only the other party is aware of the illegal purpose. Under Iranian law, an illegal purpose makes a contract void, only if entered the contractual scope. Article 217 of the Iranian Civil Code appears to declare the contract as void only if the illegal intention is explicitly stipulated in the contract; nevertheless, there is controversy among Iranian legal scholars as to the interpretation of this article; the question is: When an illegal intention renders the contract void? The study of these scholar's different opinions, while considering their foundations in Imamia jurisprudence, prepares the ground for an exact and correct interpretation of article 217 of the Iranian Civil Code based on realities of the society.
Theoretical Framework: The purpose of a contract is the main motive of one party which has, explicitly or implicitly, entered the contractual scope.
Purpose of contract must be distinguished from similar concepts such as cause of contract which is typical in all cases of a certain contract, regardless of each party's personal motives. Object of contract is another concept which must be distinguished from purpose of contract. The latter, as the main motive of the contract, enables the parties to achieve the object of contract.
By illegal purpose, it is meant each case where the purpose is contrary to public policy, ethics and religious rules, even if there is no specific legal provision on it.
Public policy, generally, is a status in which the main frameworks and redlines of legal rules are respected.
The authors, after defining the main terms used in this article (the theoretical framework), applying an analytic-descriptive method, discuss different opinions offered by legal scholars and Imami jurists about the remedy of illegal contracts and criticize and study the justifications put forward for those opinions.
The Iranian legislator has, in article 217 of the Iranian Civil Code, made the effectiveness of illegal purpose of a contract subject to its explicit stipulation in the contract. According to article 217 of the Iranian Civil Code, "it is not necessary to stipulate the purpose of contract but in case it is stipulated, it must be legal, otherwise the contract would be void". The results of the present article show that a category of Iranian legal scholars, following the famous opinion of the Imami jurists and by means of a literal interpretation, believe that illegal purpose makes the contract void if communicated by the party with such a motive, to the other; the adherents to this opinion see it in favour of legal certainty and security of legal relationships. On the contrary, a group of Iranian legal scholars, following the lesser known opinion of the Imami jurists, consider the above said interpretation inconsistent with the philosophy behind the enactment of article 217 of the Iranian Civil Code and treat the contract as void in case one party is aware of the illegal motive of the other.
Conclusions & Suggestions: The authors believe that the lesser known opinion of Imami jurists and legal scholars is more consistent with legal and economic interests of the society. This issue is, nowadays, of special importance with regard to contracts affecting the economic field, since believing that only explicitly stipulated purpose makes contracts void is harmful to the society and paves the way for conclusion of contracts made with the intention to disrupt public policy.

The discussion regarding the requirement of guessed indications in general and the requirement of news specifically has been dealt with in our oldest principal texts, and its domain has gradually developed and incorporated issues including appearances, jurisprudence fame, lexical promises, spoken harmony, and analogy. In investigating this issue, the analysis of the viewpoints of the opponents of following of guesses (through investigating their reasons for forbidding the requirement of guesses and the inability to follow them along with discussing the abandonments due to this following) and the absolute proponents of this requirement (those who assume these reasons and abandonment as being illusion and resort to rejecting these requirements) are all taken into consideration. Dealing with the historical background and the variety of discussions leading to the development of viewpoints, in particular, in the proponents and accordingly to their categorization, the present study sheds light on the existing categories of abandonments due to following the guessed requirements, i.e., the arbitrators’ harmony including both the opponents’ and followers’ viewpoints and their rejection. It is obvious that clarifying these issues and the authority of the expansion approach can pave the way for raising discussions in other fields such as appearance, unified news and also for rejecting requirements for other indications such as analogy.

Freedom of volition principle is concerned as one of the most important and fundamental principles in jurisprudence. One instance of expression of freedom of volition is right to terminate the transaction with option of condition. Performance of option of condition in contracts is simply accepted، though in some instances of contracts such as marriage، devotion and guaranty there are disagreements، the performance of option of condition in unilateral contracts has been countered with restrictions and obstacles and many of jurists aretry to explain the lack of option of condition performance in unilateral contracts. Famous view among companionsis the lack of penetration of option of condition in unilateral contracts. In addition to consensus، their reference is the wisdom aspects which some of them refereed to that; unilateral contracts utterly don’t accept the condition and some of them refereed to that; unilateral contracts don’t accept the special aspect of condition. In this study، the reasons of discomfit and their evaluation are explained.