جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "obligatory rulings" در نشریات گروه "فقه و حقوق"

The theory of "conflict of conditional obligations in legislation" is about the scope and rules of legislation based on secondary titles. According to this theory, it is wajib (obligatory) in legislation that the rulings of Islam (including permissible, obligatory and status) and the goals of religion and the purposes of Sharia need to be all considered; that is, it is the condition of correctness, and is considered as the conditional obligation in legislation. These conditional obligations may conflict with each other, and it is in this conflict that the legislature finds the permission of legal silence or the permission of legislation contrary to the religious ruling. In the present article, this theory is compared with other theories in this regard, their commonalities and differences are described in detail, and through this comparison, the author has both explained the independence of the theory of the conflict of conditional obligations in legislation based on those theories, and has clarified the scope and rules of legislation based on secondary titles according to these theories. The proof of this theory has already been explained in the paper The Theory of Conditional Obligations in Legislation and here it is only compared with other theories. The method of this comparison is analytical and based on library sources. The result of this paper is a detailed explanation of the scope and rules of legislation and legal silence based on secondary titles, and it can be applied in the legislative system of the Islamic Republic of Iran  , regarding the duties of the Guardian Council and the Expediency Discernment Council in legislation.

This research, in a descriptive-analytical way, aims to prove that maturity is not a condition in situational judgments, which is the provisions of the rule. In this regard, he has examined the arguments for proving it, including generalities and applications, consensus, and the behavior of the legislators and the wise, with an approach based on the opinion of Imam Khomeini (ra) and has examined these opinions. A situational sentence is a sentence that is not directly related to the obligatory act and behavior, but determines a specific situation that indirectly affects human behavior. The generalities and applications of the rulings include the minor and the immature, and these cases are not assigned and are not restricted to adults and do not apply to adults. Mandatory mandatory sentences are assigned to puberty; However, the mustahab and situational rulings are not specific, and from a rational and religious point of view, there is no obstacle to their inclusion in the case of children. The authors' autonomous theory is that in situational judgments, maturity is not a condition and the rule is based on solid reasons.

The theory of conflict of conditional obligations in legislation is a theory on the scope and criteria of legislation based on the secondary topics (in jurisprudence). According to this theory, it is obligatory to observe the rulings of Islam (including permissible, obligatory, and status rulings) and the goals of religion and the purposes of Sharia in legislation, i.e., the condition for the correctness of legislation and the conditional obligation in legislation. If the obligation to observe one religious ruling in the legislation contradicts the obligation to comply with another religious ruling, or the obligation to observe a purpose of religion or a purpose of Sharia in the legislation, and the legislator considers the other party important, then, the law must be enacted according to the important party. The focus of discussion of this theory is in the position of the legislator against the unimportant ruling. According to this theory, he should ignore the law that is related to the unimportant ruling or enact the law in contradiction with it and appropriate to the important ruling. Since the permissible, obligatory and status rulings, as well as the aims of the religion and the purposes of the Sharia, are the subjects of this conditional obligation, it can be considered as the party to be conflicted. The criterion for permissibility of the law to be ignored, as well as legislation that is contrary to the religious ruling, is to observe the preferred principles of this conflict. In the present paper, the pillars of this theory are explained and proved in a jurisprudential way, to the extent of the capacity of a paper. This theory is related to the discourse of absolute Wilayat Faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist) and is based on it. The findings of this study are related to the duties of the Expediency Discernment Council (of Iran) in deciding on resolutions of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, which are introduced by the Guardian Council as illegal.