جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « infidelity » در نشریات گروه « فقه و حقوق »

Despite the consensus of the Imami and Sunni jurists about the principle of the exclusion of brothers for the mother and, as a result, her deprivation of the surplus share of the mother's one-sixth (share), the difference of opinion still remains that, presuming the brother to be the murderer, whether his right to the surplus share of the mother’s one-sixth (share) is still valid or does committing murder prevent the exclusion of brothers? Induction in jurisprudential sources indicates the existence of different views on this issue, to the extent that the renowned majority of jurists believe that presuming the brother is the murderer, they do not exclude the mother, and some others do not think that murder is an obstacle to the exclusion of brothers; some others have also left the issue in doubt or proposed caution. Conducted with descriptive and analytical method, this research tries to recognize the point of view of non-exclusion of the murderer brothers as a strong and defensible assertion; arguing that the general word “brothers” in verse 11 of Sūrat al-Nisā as a reason for the opposite view can be violable, and on the other hand, documents such as criterion (manāṭ) derived from the narrations about the non-deprivation of infidels and slaves (mamlūk), and inclusion of the mentioned manāṭ in murder - in the manner of refinement of the basis of a ruling and the removal of limitation - as well as the alignment of the consensus or at least the general acceptance of this point of view by the jurists, and most importantly, the allegorical aspect of the above-mentioned topics in the hadiths and non-relevance of the topics mentioned in the successive order of the ruling of non-exclusion, are among the documents that justify the acceptance of the non-exclusion view of the murderer brother. Therefore, the legislator’s approach to follow the unpopular jurisprudential point of view in accepting the assertion of exclusion - in the exception of the third condition of clause (b) contained in article 892 of the Civil Code - is subject to criticism; after proof of claim, removal of the mentioned exception is suggested to the conventional legislator.

The attribution of infidelity or Islam to religious dissidents has been one of the most important issues that has always preoccupied Muslim thinkers. The present research, using a problem based approach, has made a pervasive inquiry into the jurisprudential texts and has extracted at least three views in this respect. The results of the research indicate that although the theory of absolute infidelity of religious opponents is observed in the opinions of some Shi'a Akhbari jurists, this view does not have a strong support and a significant number of jurists have distinguished between the obstinate and non-obstinate opponent and also between a negligent and guilty opponent. They hold that the attribution of infidelity to religious opponents, assuming their lack of guiltiness and stubbornness, has no justification and is controversial. The present study, by adopting a descriptive-analytical method, has counted the existing statements and has measured and evaluated the documents of each of the views. Finally, it has found the recent view in accordance with the Imamiyyah criteria.

The legislator's effort is to anticipate issues and find appropriate solutions to solve them. But sometimes the legislature's efforts to do so are not as effective as they should be, and the rulings on some issues remain unsaid. In such a situation, judges, when faced with such unanswered questions, are obliged to find a verdict because they have no duty but to administer justice. One of these issues, the ruling of which is not explicitly included in the law, is the effect of Mousa Leh's infidelity and Mousa's murder by him in the discussion of wills. This issue is included in this article as an example of cases of silence in the law, the possibility of inferring its sentence by analogy in Iranian law is examined; Because, what is being questioned is that according to the issues of lack of authority of analogy in general in Imami jurisprudence, in what framework can the ruling on issues of silence in law be extracted with the help of analogy? This research, in a descriptive and analytical way and using the library study method, has clarified that although there are no conditions mentioned in jurisprudence regarding Mousa Leh, unlike the heir. However, considering the distinct position of analogy in jurisprudence with rights, with certain criteria, while considering the position of analogy in jurisprudence

Impediment to Zakat is someone who resists receiving Zakat. The jurists have expressed the issue of the impediment to Zakat in the context of the jihad of the Baghi people, the aspect of which is the sharing of the Baghi and the impediment to Zakat in not following the ruling of jihad with the infidels.

This research is of theoretical type and the research method is descriptive-analytical and the method of data collection is library and has been done by referring to documents, books and articles.

 In order to organize this research, while observing the authenticity of the texts, honesty and fidelity have been observed.

The Imam can fight with the impediment of Zakat, and this view has also been claimed by consensus. The narrations (Ahadith) that refer to disbelief of impediment to Zakat are interpreted as the severity of sin or on a degree of disbelief and are due to tolerance.

Since non-payment of Zakat is a sin, it is incumbent on the ruler or his deputy to force the obstruction of Zakat into obedience, and in case of fighting, his blood will be wasted. If the impediment to Zakat considers it lawful not to pay it, he is an apostate and his sentence will be murder.

That apostasy must be punished is a definite juristic judgment. In addition to critics، a good number of those who support Islamic jurisprudence believe that this judgment is in a sharp contradiction to a self evident human right، i. e.، freedom of speech and religion. Several books and essays have been written in this connection. However، in our opinion، they have all dealt with the problem on the basis of that very belief without going any further than gathering views and comparing them; they offer no answer to that problem and are incapable of solving that paradox. Rereading juristic texts and analyzing such terms as belief، infidelity، and apostasy، the present essay attempts to clarify whether that claim is true or false. Survey of juristic texts and theological essentials of freely-thinking in Islam on the one hand and consideration of the correct meaning of belief، infidelity، and apostasy on the other lead us to the conclusion that there is no paradox in this connection; for Quranic verses and hadiths treat the apostate as apostate because of his being naturally a warrior infidel. Infidel has its own specific definition in Islam according to which the infidel does not lie in the realm of intellectuality and belief so that his punishment could harm freedom of religion.