نشریه فقه و اجتهاد
پیاپی 5 (بهار و تابستان 1395)

One of the important issues in the science of Hadith, is how a hadith is narrated, and whether it is permissible to paraphrase it or not. This paper seeks to explain the evidences of the permissibility of narrating hadiths in paraphrase. These evidences in the Quran, hadiths, intellect, and the conduct of wise people are introduced, evaluated and accepted by the author. But It should be noted that most of the hadiths are quoted instead of being paraphrased, and the paraphrased hadiths are identifiable by evidences. If the condition was different, most of the hadith would lose their authority, because it is possible that the intention of the prophet or Imam (a) is not transmitted correctly in paraphrased hadiths.

In order to complete the evidences in criminal cases, it is important to refer to technical and scientific evidences. Criminal investigation reports, a great help for Justice officials, are considered important judicial evidences. After explaining general subjects and new ways to prove judicial issues, two important principles for the validity of this approach, namely the knowledge of the judge and referring to experts, are studied according to Shii jurisprudence and law. Finally, the conditions and the realms in which these principles can be referred to, for validating the verdict of the scientific and criminal police are explained.

Vegetative State (VS) is a disorder of consciousness in which patients with severe brain damage are in a state of partial arousal and can not manage their voluntary actions. This state has main differences with brain death and coma. From the medicine perspective, in VS brain dead cells cannot regenerate, but because the brainstem is still alive, the circulatory system, the respiratory system, the digestive system, etc. work. Such persons can live in this state for years, even without any respiratory system. In addition to brain cells, other organs and senses also may be injured, therefore, this question raises that whether the retaliation and ransom (diya) interfere or not? Some mujtahids hold that the ransom of such crime should be a complete diya for intellect and for every sense. This assay tries to determine the retaliation and the ransom in these cases, according to interference and non-interference theories in retaliation and ransom.

This article studies the jurisprudential-legal viewpoint on property documents. A property document is an official document and is considered valid and the most important proof for ownership by the law. In this study, the validity of property documents is investigated in Shii jurisprudence. The author concluded that their validity is restricted to the condition of “being property and having value” or “being evidence (Amarah)”. Having a comprehensive study, it is shown that these documents can not be considered as “being property and having value”, but if they are admitted by a just government, they can be considered as evidence. Proving that these documents can be considered as evidences, it can be claimed that they can be one side of contracts, e.g. as mortgage.

One of the meanings of the principle of Iqdam (taking action) is to establish legal liability (Ziman), which is discussed in invalid transactions, when somebody acts against the owner and become responsible for paying money or doing something or abandoning it. Another meaning of the rule of Iqdam is to deny legal liability (Ziman), when one acts against oneself. This rule includes both taking an action and abandoning it as well, and have wide-range of applications in new issues, such as Euthanasia. Euthanasia is the act of killing someone who is very old or very ill so that they do not suffer any more, either with their consent or not. After explaining the rule of Iqdam and euthanasia, this assay concluded that this act is forbidden (haram) when done by the doctor, but if the patient gives consent, the doctor is not subjected to retaliation and can reconcile with the heirs by paying ransom (diya).

The variety of the usage of context in Jurists’ works, clearly shows the role of this rule in the development of deriving rulings from jurisprudential Qur’anic verses. The main issue of this study is to explain and assess the status and the usage of the context in Qur’anic Jurisprudence. Defining the nature and the meaning of context, this essay examines different kinds of contexts including the context of words, the context of sentences and the context of verses. Context as a source of deriving jurisprudential rulings is valid if the conditions of continuity, closeness, correlation in revelation and subject, etc. are met; Otherwise, the context cannot be used as a connected evidence to understand the meaning of the verses. Therefore, the validity and the authenticity of this rule is based on the apparent meaning of the text of the Qur’an and the conduct of wise people because it refers to the internal coherence of wise speeches. Finally, some examples of the usage of context including deriving correlation, intended meanings, dividing inheritance, and difficulty (haraj) being the subject of Tayammum, are mentioned.

The issue of different readings of the holy Qur’an has always been concerned by exegetes and Jurists. Although due to the prevalence of one reading this issue is neglected today, but it can be of important consequences in Jurisprudence, Exegesis, Theology, etc. To show this importance in Jurisprudence, this study investigates the Jurisprudential consequences of different readings of the holy Qur’an. The results show that this problem has direct effects in the subject of some jurisprudential issues, as the obligation of correct reading (qīrāah) in the prayer, the obligation of purity (tahārah) for touching the Qur’an, and the prohibition of ascribing false sayings to the Almighty Allah. It also has applications in deducing some rulings, as the rulings concerning touching or washing the foot in the minor ablution (wuzu), or the end of the rulings of menstruation (Hayz) being major ablution (qusl) or purity from blood.

Islamic Jurisprudence is one of the important issues of orientalists’ researches. The process of their conclusions shows that they hold that the origin of Islamic Jurisprudence is the judicial system of Jews and the Byzantine Empire. Being the latest research on the topic, this article investigates orientalists’ studies of the Qur’anic Jurisprudence, with an analytical-critical method. According to this research, Orientalists have cited to some resemblance between Islamic Law and Jewish-Roman Law. Muslim thinkers’ answer to this theory was always that all divine religions are revelations by one god (the Almighty Allah) and therefore these similarities are natural. They also tried to show the essential differences between Islamic Law and Jewish-Roman Law.