جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « عدم مشروعیت » در نشریات گروه « علوم انسانی »

Corruption of contracts in society creates adverse effects, deep class differences. Corruption of the contract causes the loss of the party who, relying on the validity of the contract, incurs costs and lays the foundation stone of his trust in the contract, which is ultimately annulled. In the relationship between the parties, there is no doubt about the return of the same property to the corrupt contract, and since the invalidity has no legal effect and no ownership is created, the status should be restored to its previous state and the pre-contract status should be revoked. . This is because the parties to the contract may have waived costs or opportunities in concluding it. In the case of financial corruption of the contract, all these cases are considered as damages, because the party to whom the cause of the corruption is attributed and nevertheless enters into the contract, is guilty and should be held responsible for compensating such damages. In this regard, contract corruption is an executive guarantee to advance the goals of society towards proper legal relations. Under UK law, a contract may be declared void and ineffective. This invalidity in terms of creation, such as contracts that are contrary to public order, morality, good and illegitimate, has many similarities with Iranian law. Regarding the status of the contract in English law

Bitcoin (virtual currency) is cryptocurrency that is used only through cyberspace. in the present study, the jurisprudential dimensions of issue have been explained by two approaches of individual and governmental jurisprudence, as well as at two levels of transaction and extraction. In addition, using the research method of multi-stage ijtihad and the opinion of Islamic financial experts and great authorities of imitation, the conditions of the license to use cryptocurrencies have been calculated.

The findings of the present study show that there is disagreement among jurists about the legitimacy of this money. Some jurists consider its illegitimacy and the most important reasons for jurists to reject the legitimacy of Bitcoin is the ambiguity of this currency, the uncertainty of its origin and destination, its high risk and its foreignness. But some other jurists and economists believe in the legitimacy of virtual currency and give reasons for its legitimacy.Ethical Considerations: In order to organize this research, while observing the authenticity of the texts, honesty and fidelity have been observed.

The view of jurisprudence is affirmative in the face of emerging financial issues such as bitcoin. Money approved by Shiite jurisprudence is not confined to cash. The tax of a currency has a direct relationship with its desirability among the common sense and the people. In Shiite jurisprudence, there is no evidence that the tax created is a benefit of consumerism, and virtual currency and bitcoin are taxed.

Imami jurisprudence, in order to repel any domination and domination of the enemies of Sharia, has opened the door to jihad, which has both a defensive aspect and an offensive aspect. Defense against the aggressor in the absence of adequate military facilities takes a special form, of which martyrdom operations are obvious examples.Martyrdom operation is a new method that is carried out to resist and confront the enemy of Islam with new deadly tools, with the intention of approaching God, and the perpetrator has a prevailing certainty or suspicion that he himself will be martyred during the operation. Since the martyrdom operation is similar to suicide in form, it has no legitimacy in the minds of some experts.The present study, by analytical and library method and by analyzing jurisprudential books and various researches and examining the jurisprudential arguments and principles of the opponents of martyrdom operations, came to the conclusion that martyrdom actions, while different from suicide, have legitimacy and the reasons given are: Opponents, in terms of differences in intent and purpose, have a thematic exit.

Critique of judicial Sentences is valuable because it affects the thinking and interpretation of other judges and jurists on similar issues and will also enrich the scientific opinions. This case is a branch of the criminal case known as the embezzlement of three trillion, which is both innovative in form and very important in substance. The main focus of this study is the effect of fraud and illegality in basic relationships on documentary credit. In this case, the court explained the principle of the independence of documentary credit and explicitly accepted, in addition to the exception of fraud, for the first time in Iranian judicial practice, another exception called illegality. The Honorable Judge has also, in good faith, granted immunity to third parties against these exceptions and has supported them, in that the position of the Iranian legal system is on a par with that of the United States legal system.

A documentary credit consists of a combination of several legal relationships. In some cases, the underlying contract or the contract for the opening of the credit may be illegal; hence the question arises what is the effect of underlying contract on the documentary credit and whether illegality in the underlying contract should be accepted as an exception to the autonomy principle of documentary letters of credit.In the law of Iran, the issue of illegality of the documentary credit itself and the underlying contract has been raised in the civil cases of the biggest bank fraud and the opinion of The majority of judges do not accept illegitimacy as an exception to the principle of autonomy and believe in the absolute sovereignty of the principle of independence;But in recent English cases, the judge’s obiter dicta accepted the illegality of the underlying contract as the exception to the principle of autonomy in documentary credit. A comparative study of illegality in common law countries also demonstrates that some jurisdictions have getting ready to recognize it as another exception to principal of autonomy in the documentary letters of credit

The science of plastic surgery is one of the achievements of the modern medical science which has two branches, cosmetic surgery and reconstructive plastic surgery. The pivotal question of this research revolves around the jurisprudential reasons for the unlawfulness of cosmetic surgery. It has been proved, after studying and scrutinizing all the associated arguments concerning prohibition, that cosmetic surgery does not lead to a change in the principal human creation because the reason for prohibition of creating a change hold good when the change is metamorphic in the sense that when something new that is opposed to divine creation is created it would lead to legislation in the religion. Additionally, some scholars are of the view that cosmetic surgery is forbidden because it causes one to exit and relinquish the upright religion. This view is uncorroborated and does not seem strong enough to challenge the permissibility of cosmetic surgery. As well, the claim that dying or coloring the original human being is forbidden through cosmetic surgery is also not correct because the term “divine coloring” in the verse 138 of chapter al-Baqarah refers to sincerity, faith and Islam which everyone is bound to follow so that no division or schism ever takes place in the religion. Therefore, this verse does not refer to physical change so that it could be used to prove the prohibition of cosmetic surgery.

The right to live is a common human right, which is essential to every individual human being due to the inherent dignity of the human person. No one is allowed to take this right from another human being, and the transgression of this human law, which is also supported by the transcendent teachings of Islam, requires perfect reasons. Therefore, in case of uncertainty about whether to sentence an individual to death or not, one should observe the primary principle, that is, the illegitimacy of taking an individual’s life. Concerning the punishment for incest, what is considered to be the opinion of the dominant majority of the Imamite school is the
necessity of the convicts’ execution, which is also reflected in the Islamic Penal Law. This view has been supported by the exterior of the traditional narratives as well as the consensus of the Shiite jurists. It seems, however, that the reasons put forward in justification of this punishment do not necessarily suffice. Our investigation of the related textual references, in the present study, shows the illegitimacy of execution as a prescribed punishment for incest.

Marriage is a type of contract that allows one's spouse to take advantage of his or her partner in a legitimate way. It is one important contract in the field of jurisprudence and law that has various consequences and functions. Establishing a family, general and specific advantage that each party takes from his or her spouse, custody of children, alimony, and dowry are among the implications of the contract. These all show the importance of the concept of jus cogens in this contract. Additionally, ethics, ethnology, and religious regulations have their own parts in the contract. One of the most important and challenging issues that has resulted in numerous legal concerns is sex change. This challenge has never been observed before and can happen to any spouse. Our main concern in this regard is regardless of the legitimacy of the sex reassignment therapy, what impact this operation has on the marriage contract itself and on the consequences resulting from this sex change, such as alimony and the custody of children. This article makes an attempt to provide answers to these questions.