naser marivani

Cash pre-purchase of products of production units at a certain price, which is used to secure part of the working capital of production units. According to the definitions of the jurists, the sale of an object described in dhamma and with the word salam or salaf; or the purchase of long-term assets is considered as cash.

This research is of a theoretical type, and the research method is descriptive and analytical, and the method of collecting information is library-based, and it was done by referring to documents, books, and articles.
Ethical Considerations: In this article, the originality of the texts, honesty and trustworthiness are observed.

The current bank contracts related to receiving advance loans from Iranian banks have conditions that according to the legal definitions of peace sale and its validity conditions; We find that the existing differences between banking contracts in Iranian banks and the fiqh laws of sale of peace, and the difference in the terms of granting advance loans by banks, and the conditions of price and goods in the validity of sale of goods, cause the corruption of salem contracts between banks and customers. .

In the repayment of a bank advance loan, Muslim Fiyh (goods) which is traded in immovable form, is changed like a cash sale for cash plus a predetermined interest.

The validity of individual hadith reports within religious beliefs, as well as the attitudes towards those who reject these reports, represents a significant debate in religious epistemology among the jurists of the Imamiyya (Shiite) and Shafiʿiyya (Sunni) schools. This article provides a comprehensive examination of the perspectives held by scholars from both sects, employing a comparative and analytical methodology. Scholars from the Shafiʿi school advocate for the legitimacy of individual hadith reports, substantiating their position with textual evidence, including references from the Quran (notably Surah An-Naba' and Surah At-Tawbah), hadiths that are contextualized, and the principle of consensus (ijmaʿ). Conversely, Imamiyya scholars predominantly depend on non-textual forms of evidence, particularly the practices of the rational community (ʿuqala). Both sects acknowledge the validity of individual hadith reports concerning non-doctrinal issues. While early Imamiyya scholars rejected the validity of such reports in doctrinal contexts, later scholars accept them only when they are accompanied by contextual indicators. Similarly, Shafiʿi scholars regard individual reports that are supported by contextual evidence or recognized by the community as valid for doctrinal purposes, although such instances are infrequent among Shafiʿis. Given the varied methodologies for deriving knowledge from individual reports and the inferential nature of the knowledge obtained, neither sect has deemed it necessary to excommunicate those who dispute such reports. The parallels in the perspectives of these two sects underscore the existence of scholarly and theoretical commonalities, emphasizing the importance of fostering convergence and reconciliation between them.

Changes in human societies have created various needs that, if not met, would cause distress and constriction. Islamic jurisprudence has therefore paid special attention to meeting the needs of people. Throughout history, this effort is seen in all religious schools, despite differences in their attitudes. However, Sunni jurists have paid more attention to it than Shi'ites, and subsequently, it is more apparent in their fatwas and judicial decrees. One area of focus in meeting needs (ḥᾱjᾱt) is the substantiation of claims in general and the substantiation of crimes in particular. Using the library and analytical-descriptive method, this research proves that since proof is something that makes the truth obvious, seemingly through accepting indications as proof and the legitimacy of inferring religious laws based on the availability of needs, which has been a common way between early jurists in different jurisprudential matters, the possibility of extending it to criminal cases is valid as well, especially if the most proofs or the only ones are based on people's needs. Therefore, relying on needs for permitting the use of new strategies and methods of proving a crime, such as image, voice, and so forth, not only does not contradict the purposes of Shari'a, but is also compatible with actualization of justice. Obviously, in addition to utilizing traditional evidence, new cases have a complementary role, and if they are not available, they have a substitute role as required; also, they can be cited as legal reasons when there is no doubt in the authenticity of describing them to people.

In a general view, Shar'i rulings are divided into two categories: devotional (ta‘abbudī) and explanatory (ta‘līlī). The first category, which is also called rulings of non-reasonable meaning, is such that intellect is not able to understand their detailed wisdom and if it is left to the obligee to determine and recognize them, he will fail to understand them. In contrast to this category, there are explanatory or reasonable rulings. Considering that the judgment of all incidents and events is not specified in the texts and the ruling for many of them is left to the ijtihāds of the mujtahids, it is important and necessary to distinguish between the devotional rulings and the explanatory rulings, whose cause can be discovered and understood, because in devotional rulings there is no way for ijtihād, and ijtihād leads to heresy, while in explanatory rulings, the prohibition of ijtihād would lead to the non-compliance of Shari'a with the conditions, and as a result, to improper ijtihād. In order to understand the devotional rulings, such criteria as lack of reasonableness of meaning, lack of appearance of wisdom, constraint, stability, human inability to understand the cause and lack of explanation have been stated. It seems that among these criteria, only the criterion of constraint can be the real criterion for recognizing the devotional rulings. Firstly, other criteria alone are not considered as sufficient; secondly, some of them overlap or refer to a common meaning; and thirdly, they do not include all the referents of devotional rulings.

Non-Muslim is a member of the Islamic community, who does not believe in an essentially-accepted principle of Islam, i.e., acknowledging Muhammad as the last prophet of God. According to Islamic jurisprudence, non-Muslims can obtain the citizenship of an Islamic country by accepting the ‘Dhimmah’ contract and enjoy its legal privileges as long as they do not commit any crime there. In crimes committed against individuals, in addition to retaliation and amnesty, paying the blood money to innocent victim(s) is also legitimate. Most of Islamic jurisprudents from the sects of Imamiyyah, Malikiyyah, Shafi‘iyyah, Hanbaliyyah, Dhahiriyyah, and Abadhiyyah believe that the blood money of non-Muslims is lower than that of Muslims. However, it seems that reasons given for this theory is not compatible with the significantly-expressed goal of the God in realizing social justice. The majority of documents referred to for such inequality have invalid references. It seems that the issues like ‘Dhimmah’ and ‘Jizya’, which have been considered in Islam for non-Muslims, have been all related to the certain time and situation in which these issues have appeared for the first time, and there is not any rationale for generalizing such cases to other times and situations. The blood money-related rules for non-Muslims are sub-clauses of other changeable rules; thus, they may vary in different times and situations. A clear difference among various references for non-Muslims’ blood money proves the above-mentioned issues. Conducting a descriptive study on the opinions of both Shia and Sunni jurisprudents and analyzing the way of their reasoning, the present research rejects the influence of a victim’s religion on the amount of his/her blood money.

Talfiq (integration) is defined as a combination of the different views of religious scholars which is not fully consistent with the exact views of any of them. It is aimed at facilitating religious assignments. Therefore, Talfiq enjoy commonalities with Taysir (facilitation) as a tenet in Islamic tradition and under rules such “removal of constrictions” and the “Yosr rule”. On the other hand, however, Talfiq may take place to relieve the religious obligations of an obligated person or actually lead to such a thing. .Some religious scholars believe that integration over a Fatwa is allowed in case of necessity since it leads to openings as well as removal of constrictions. Others have considered a wider application for Talfiq, arguing that it is allowed not only when necessary, but also when needed. It is evidenced upon Taysir (facilitation) and removal of constriction that could be applied to the relevant obligator. It seems that Taysir and Talfiq overlap each other, because every case of Talfiq is not necessarily considered as Taysir, and every case of Taysir is not necessarily categorized under Talfiq, although all cases of Talfiq ensure Tatsir in practice and especially in contemporary Fatwas.

The analogy of the transmission of a sentence from the main to the secondary is due to the existence of a similar cause between them. The prevailing belief is that Imami jurists have not accepted analogy and this negative approach has been going on for a long time. Imami jurists have been skeptical about the application of analogy in all religious matters, but in jurisprudential and legal rulings, they have used the analogy of Mansoos al-Ala and the analogy of priority. And they have used it under other titles, such as denouncing the manats, but they have not accepted the analogy attributed to God. Shafi'i jurists, in the absence of a jurisprudential ruling in the Qur'an, Sunnah or consensus, have considered analogy as a reason for inferring and issuing jurisprudential rulings. And they consider it a religious necessity for issuing fatwas and legislation and one of the ways of recognizing and expressing rulings.In this research, the authority of analogy and the application of analogy attributed to Imamiyya and Shafi'i have been studied. Shafi'i because of the perception of the causes of the rulings in the rulings of jurisprudence and law with regard to their humanity, Also due to the impossibility of accessing the real reasons of all the verdicts, And the emergence of many new issues, the use of analogy is allowed. The Imams have accepted the issuance of jurisprudential rulings based on the revision of manat and rational implications. Both of these are functions of the intellect and therefore are very similar to the analogous analogy of Shafi'i. And in practice, there are many deductive rulings in the books of Imami jurisprudence which have been issued based on the analogy of the deduced analogy.

Contradictory possession means the non-fulfillment of the condition stated in the contract. According to the terms of the contract, the violation of the condition can be examined in three cases of violation of the condition of the adjective, verb and result. Considering that the parties to the contract have considered a specific purpose and motivation for inserting the condition in the contract, without a doubt their relationship is effective and creates legal conditions for constitutionalism. The jurists disagree on the freedom of contract and on freedom of condition, along with contracts, but in this case they agree that whenever a contract is concluded with full pillars and conditions, it will have binding power. This study, by descriptively examining the views of Imami and Sunni jurists and analyzing its reasons, has considered the legal act (contract or iqa ') that has been done against the condition to be correct, but the constitutional case can take two steps against violating the condition: First, it can be contractual. To terminate the condition in which the condition is stated and, secondly, to request compensation in case of conditional violation against the damage caused to him. Of course, in some cases, such as marriage, etc., this general rule must be deviated, as in some cases, the legislature has deviated

Excommunication Rules and Obstacles from Viewpoint of Sunnite Excommunication Rules and Obstacles from Viewpoint of Sunnite Abstract: Excommunication means deeming Muslim unbeliever, and has been always an important subject in discourse and jurisprudence. The importance of its subject matter and damaging results leads the Muslim authorities discuss and research on it from the early years of forming the verbal and jurisprudential movements to the present time. This paper discusses and examines the viewpoint of jurists and speakers of Sunnite and congregation on excommunication. The result of this paper is that the excommunication of Muslims is forbidden and contrary to the canonical rules, as a principle. Therefore, relinquishing the excommunication and cases of ordering the unbelief of people requires the presentation of reliable proofs and reasons empty of any ignorance, error, unintention, paraphrase, imitation, and with regard to the final notice, whose description is undertaken by the Islamic scientists. Keywords: Belief, Excommunication, Definite Excommunication, Excommunication Rules, Excommunication Obstacles

Islamic jurisprudence is responsible for understanding divine laws and responding to human needs in the context of individual and social laws and regulations that specify the general rights of individuals to the community, as well as the proper structure of these relationships, and rules such as law, loss, discipline. And he remembers your stewardship ... Guarantees are among the most important and controversial topics in the field of law. Most importantly, because it is the most afflicted, and most controversial, in spite of the wide range of opinions and writings on this subject, there are still disagreements. Social thought has been a well-known customary and institutional founding of human societies and its origin is respect for the property, rights, and other matters in which the guarantor is concerned, and thus in all religions and law schools, the general principle of the guarantor notwithstanding. It has been recognized and legitimized and proven in the toys. Therefore, the root of the customary establishment of the guarantee must be traced back to property and other individual and social rights that have been accepted by human beings in all historical periods for the sake of social interest and justice. The product of social institution is the guarantee of social order, security and justice. Assigning a variety of responsibilities is also a new approach to the science of law.

Expediency originates from Sharia and is defined as distinguishing good deeds from bad deeds. The long history of expediency in Shafi‘i and Ja‘fari jurisprudence makes it justifiable to conduct comparative studies. Shafi‘i jurisprudence considers expediency as a kind of argument, covering all kinds of expediency-based Ijtihad by expanding the scope of syllogism. Employing rational perceptions and conforming modern issues to existing reasons, Shafi‘i jurisprudents use exegesis-based Ijtihad, syllogism and Exigency-based reasoning. Ja‘fari jurisprudence considers certain perceptions of rationality as the basis of truth, and considered pursuing them necessary like Sharia laws. In both Shafi‘i and Ja‘fari jurisprudence, intellect has been accepted as a means for deducing governmental rulings based on expediency, but there are differences among these two kinds of jurisprudence in terms of function and application. Expediency plays an essential role in the scope of governmental rulings. Governmental rulings are issued and implemented depending on expediency. These rulings are expediency-based and are not considered as permanent rulings.

With establishment speed of computer systems, people in modern society are increasingly dependent on hardware and software systems. And when the demand for computer systems increased, the possibility of crisis and failure of the computer will increase. Thus, the reliability of computer systems has become a key concern for our life. According to The IEEE defines, software reliability is probability of failure-free software operation for a specified period of time in a specified environment. The problem is that currently most accurate method of software has error, and unfortunately still cannot completely prevent all errors. And software maintenance cost and elimination of errors is expensive, and even because of these reasons may be allowed error to remain in the system. This has reduced the reliability of the software. Previous solutions and procedures to enhance software assurance in various elimination forecasting and fault tolerance techniques has problems such as the complexity of formal methods (nominal) single version and version redundancy techniques, testing costs and the reuse of software code changes. The aim of this study is provide a method to increase software reliability and redundancy without the complexity of the software. In this study emphasize on the use of the capabilities inherent in the algorithm to reduce the complexity of software.

In Islamic jurisprudence giving obligation to drunkens acts andcorrectness of wordly and deedly acts and it's athari waz`y this acts,is an arguable subject between usulin and jurists. While usulian tolean on principals such as understanding abilities of duties fromrequired; and by comparison of asleep, neglegant and mad, agreewith not giving obligation to drunk acts and especially according tokhitab al-waz` view, by analysis problem to causation, intoxicatedshould be responsible for the results of their deeds and wards.Majority of jurists by refereeing to rules such as" al-aimtnae` bilakhtyarla yanafai al-akhtyar" related to delibratly drunk, say thatintoxication cann't be an abstacle to giving obligation and drunk andsober are equal in giving obligation. Deliberated drunk is someonewho without having one of the legal excuses such as reluctance,necessity, ignorance; deliberately drink with awareness.From the view point of majority jurists, such person for havingfreewill and awareness in becoming intoxication and also forcommitting legal prohibition, would be recompand to punishmentand results of his/her acts. Opposed to, undelibrated drunk whohis/her intoxication is allowable and it is legal excuses. Such person People healthy and their lineage pure and original. In this case,Iranian and Egyptian legislators by counting some of the instancesof permenant prohibition of marriage in law text, have beenemphasized on it.