The Right of God is one of the key concepts in Islamic jurisprudence and it is the direct or indirect foundation of all the rules of Islam. This study has not only proven this mentioned fact but has also shown that the “Right” in that phrase has different meanings from “The right of human” phrase; one of them is factual and the other one is metaphorical .These two words are not even literally equivalent; their owners are essentially and fundamentally dual; this has changed the nature of their rights fundamentally. Also this evolution has resulted in grave differences and these differences have separated these two types of “Rights” from one other. The separation is such deep that it cannot be ignored and hence these two words, apart from their distinct instances, cannot be considered as synonyms; thus there is not any theoretical solution unless we consider one of them as factual and the other one as metaphorical. In the second step the study has argued that if the word “right” collocates with God (ALLAH), it is a metaphor and if it collocates with “human” (ALNA: S), it is factual. Furthermore, it has been argued that since “right “stems from need, shortness, and weakness, the right must be useful for its owner and its non-compliance must make him suffer and finally deprivation of any right must be potentially possible; this possibility is the evidence of the weakness of its owner in protecting his right and because of these three reasons, God has not the position of possession of right, so he has not any right legally. At last, it has been proven that because these two rights have different meanings, origins and interpretations, they are not synonyms and, therefore, it is impossible to generalize their rules to each other. These rules and principles cannot be considered in Islamic jurisprudence rules as “The rights of God”. It is 1. 2. clear that since god does not have any rights and the phrase of “right of god” is a metaphor, in spite of correctness or wrongfulness of this argument, a concept that does not have any external manifestation and cannot be imagined in a mind, determination of its character is illogical. This article deals with negative logic before proving that the right of god is a metaphor.

In this article, through research on what is the meaning of divine justice, we examined the issue of human rights against God. The main question is what meaning of justice can be attributed to God? Given that divine justice is presented in three areas of creation, legislation and punishment, the meaning of justice that covers these three areas is "giving everyone the right to it." There is no problem in imagining the right of non-God to God when this right of God himself is positive. Moral justice is the meaning of justice that has no place in attributing it to God in the works of thinkers, especially our philosophers. Among the meanings of justice according to Shahid Motahhari, the meaning that is doubtful is the one that he considers to be the only appropriate meaning of justice to attribute to God: formative or philosophical justice. Moreover, the design of the discussion of justice in the position of creation, which has not yet been created, is questionable; This meaning of justice does not cover criminal and legislative justice, nor is it a suitable explanation for the verses and hadiths that attribute justice to God in all actions and purify him from any oppression

In the Islamic view, the public rights of the people are of particular importance. In the position of conflict between the right of God and the right of the people, he considers the right of the people before the right of God In addition, harm to the general public guarantees and compensates. Whether this damage is caused directly or indirectly. Instead of advising solidarity and intimacy, the culture of urbanization and living in an apartment has the convergence and separation to avoid conflicts of interest, and in explaining the damage to neighbors in the neighborhood, minor and insignificant examples. It has been noticed and more important issues and losses have been neglected. Keeping animals in the apartment causes the spread of viruses whose damage is not limited to the apartment where they live, and most of the neighbors may be affected. The present article tries to examine the jurisprudential-legal guarantees of animal owners in the apartment space by resorting to constitutional laws, the bill of the Environment Organization and the plan of the members of the parliament regarding the subject and rules of jurisprudence of La zarar and Tasbib, and make suggestions for correcting and supplementing the relevant laws and regulations.

One of the features of a fair and powerful judiciary is the immediate and final implementation of punishments. Immediate and definitive execution of punishments is a feature of a fair and powerful proceedings system, and basically the result of all the efforts that are made in the preliminary investigation and proceedings stages is achieved during the execution of the sentence. However, sometimes during the execution of sentences, there are assumptions that cause hesitations about the urgency of the execution of punishments. Accordingly, the issue under consideration in this article is that if a person sentenced to death, whether for retaliation or hadd, commits another crime after the conviction has been finalized and before the execution of the sentence; Or, after a punishment which sentenced to death and before the execution of the sentence, it should be established that the respondent person has committed another crime before committing the crime subject to the punishment which sentenced to death, and should be discovered and proved now. In such a situation, is the execution of Hadd (borders, boundaries, limits) or QiৢƗৢ (retaliation) delayed or not? In this article, we examine this assumption from a legal and jurisprudential point of view by an analytical-interpretive method. The results of the research indicate that such issues are examples of conflicts of rights with each other in which more important instances exclude the important ones. It is very effective in recognizing the importance of the right, the right of God (what is due to God) or the right of the people (what is due to people) to commit a new crime. Therefore, in each case, it is necessary to make a decision according to the different conditions and characteristics and the right of God (what is due to God) or the right of the people (what is due to people) to commit crimes, and it is not possible to state a single verdict for all cases.

The precedence of the people's right over the God's right is one of the prevalent  propositions which is employed as a rule, that may seem necessary at first glance, to deduce. However, referring to jurisprudential books shows that some jurists have criticized and rejected this rule. The importance of the issue on the one hand and the the pioneers' disagreement over it on the other hand, necessitate the present research. The present article surveys the issue using a library method and an analytical-ijtihadi approach. Examination of the arguments for the precedence of the people's right over God's right shows that narrations and arguments presented to prove such a precedence are not sufficient to prove it, additionally, the proofs that indicate precedence of God's right over that of the people, are not sufficiently proving it. Therefore, no general rule can be given in this regard; Maybe there might be a case in which the people's right precedes that of God or vice versa.

Epistemologically, the notion of "right" seems self-evident, and means the permissibility of "having a character" or "doing/leaving an action." Ontologically, however, the concept of "right" is a philosophical—and neither logical nor essential—concept. When used in the case of the human being, it is extracted from his comparison with the real human perfection, a perfection that can be attained by doing or leaving and action or possessing a character. The same concept can be extracted by comparing the Necessary Existent with His goal, because He is a free agent too. The author in this article argues that "right" can be divided into two categories, taking the agent's goal into account: a) the essential and original right, and b) the incidental right. Since God's goal in creating the world are attained by His ontological and legislative will, each of these two types of will is the source of one type of original right: ontological and legislative. Rights ascribed to the human being are divided into ethical and legal rights. While the source of all legal rights is God's legislative will, some ethical rights are derived from God's legislative will, and the others from His ontological will.

This article has drawn various kinds of conflict in implementation of punishments in jurisprudential (fiqhi) approach and from Iranian penal code’s point of view. Since the crimes and punishments have not been classified based on the seriousness and weakness of crimes it is complicated to find the ways of conflict resolution in case of conflict in implementation of punishment. The article emphasizes that one decisive criterion for conflict resolution in implementation of punishments in Islamic jurisprudence is the priority of those relating to God’s rights over those containing people’s rights. The article has shed light on the nature of God’s rights (Hagh Allah) punishments and people rights (Hagh al-Nas) punishments and the examples of each category. The article explains evidences in favor of priority of people rights over God’s rights and criticizes the position taken by Iranian penal code over the issue. At the end, the article suggests proposals for improvement of the related articles and regulations in Iranian criminal law

Article 406 of the Iranian Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits absenteeism in crimes involving the divine right and prescribes this type of sentence in other crimes. This approach apparently relies on the consensus of Imamiyah jurists. With the permission of the trial and in absentia conviction, all types of lawsuits are included, but due to the rule of the principle of discount, the rule of threshold, as well as the taste of Sharia, the sentence of absenteeism in the crimes of God's right does not include. The question is that to what extent the consensus adopted by the Iranian legislature is consistent with the principles of Islamic jurisprudence derived from the narrations of the infallibles on the one hand and customary judicial systems including mixed systems and accusations on the other? Accuracy in the narrations of face-to-face and absentee trials indicates that consensus is not consistent with the principle of the presence of a fair trial based on the narrations of the infallibles. Mixed trial and its security-oriented approach requires the absolute permission of the trial and in absentia in all crimes, including the crimes of the right of God and the crimes of human rights. According to Article 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it does not meet the needs of the current Iranian security system, nor does it represent a fair and transparent trial based on the narrations of the Infallibles. The crimes are the right of God, which disrupts public order, and complying with the fair and transparent trial of Islam, which is somewhat similar to the accusation, calls for an absolute ban on absenteeism in all crimes.

The present paper provides a philosophical explanation on the absolute types of rights according to their first divisions in the philosophy of rights. In the philosophy of right، rights can be divided into different types based on different parameters which include: 1. the origin of the formation of right; 2. the elements of right; 3. necessary concomitance of right and duty; and 4. transferability and non-transferability of right. In all these divisions، absolute right، i. e. the right unconditioned on a moral، legal، and political، etc. limitation، is divided. The aforementioned parameters validates twelve types of rights which respectively include moral and legal right، the right of God and non-God، authentic and consequential right، the right concomitant and non-concomitant with duty (that is، the right of claim، and otherwise.)، vindication-deserving right and non-vindication-deserving right، transferable and non-transferable right. It is obvious that some of these types are new.

The permission of an fallible judge to invoke his personal knowledge for issuing of judgment is one of the long-standing jurisprudential issues, which is still an important issue for the judiciary today.Evidence in criminal matters in the judicial system is the main element of the case before the judge,cause according to Article 37 of the Constitution of the IslamicRepublicofIran:“Innocence is to be presumed,and no one is to be held guilty of a charge unless his or her guilt has been established by a competent court.The knowledge of the judge has a special place as one of the proofs of litigation in contemporary legal systems,especiallyin the Islamic judicial system.This symbol is provided in the Islamic Penal Code in Articles160-211-212of theIPCin 2013.Although the validity of the knowledge of the judge as the reason for proving the claim has been the subjectof discussion and dispute among Imami jurists,but well-known scholars believe in the authority and validityof the knowledge of the judge. Imam Khomeini(RA)considers the knowledge of the judge as an authority,both in the right of God and in the people's rights,this is true for both civil and criminal matters, provided that there is no evidence against his knowledge.In other words, we can say that legislation is superior to judge-made rules.However,the late Abi Salah made a distinction between God’s right and people’s rightandstated thatafallible judge cannot relyon his knowledge in the affairs of the right of God. Examining these statements and explaining the arguments and the final opinion are the topics of this article.