پژوهش نامه فقه اجتماعی
پیاپی 15 (پاییز و زمستان 1398)

Premium contracts recently entered in to the transaction trends of the Iran Mercantile Exchange, therefore, reviewing the conditions and elements of this agreement in the form of Sale contract or other legal forms it is very important. In the current process, these transactions are carried out in the form of obligation against the obligation. The clearinghouse monitors the Measures of Parties of the Contract and after the promised deadline a deal is done at the maturity date. In the present paper, the question of validity or nullity of this contract has been paid under the sale contract. This is because some jurisprudence errors have been introduced to the validity of future contracts at the beginning of the agreement which are; 1. Ka’li against ka’li 2. Qa-Rar. The authors, using the descriptive - analytical method, concluded that none of the drawbacks errors abound in the accuracy of premium contracts in the form of sale contracts. This is because of there is no mentioned in the shi’a narrations to invalidation of Ka’li against ka’li contract especially when it consuls after the main contract. So the Premium contracts are the same. Furthermore there is no Qa-Rar in Premium contracts because the the scale of Qa-Rar is the ignorance that lead to loss and danger about the cost of contract. But the Qa-Rar, in the Premium contracts, is the essential Qa-Rar of Neglected contracts which is normal and forgiveness. So it is correct that the both sides of the contract, in the first time, could insert the Premium contract under the sale contract.

Article (188) of the Islamic Penal Code (1392), testifies to the testimony as one of the arguments for proving the claim, but in note (2) of this article, the testimony on the testimony of a third party is not accepted. This note is in accordance with the famous fatwa of the Imamieh jurisprudents. The main reason for the popularity of the jurists is the consensus, adherence to the principle, the non-inclusion of traditions on the subject of testimony on the testimony, as well as a specific narrative in this regard. Contrary to this promise, however, a number of contemporary jurists believe that the acceptance of third-party testimony is justified. The group rejects all the well-known arguments in support of their claim and, in their view, refuse to offset the weakness of the particular cause document by fame; In this article, the authors examine the famous arguments and argue throughout the argument that even if one accepts the scientific theory of documentary weakness compensation by fame, the famous quote can still be accepted and promises to have some form of construction. The authors suggest that the inclusion of a single news authority argument may be a strong reason for accepting testimony over subordinate testimony. It is worth noting that this theory has a wide application in the context of the affirmative action, especially in cases such as the special endowment that, after the initial abortive death and the endowment reaches the end, there is no way to prove the endowment other than the testimony of subordinate testimony.

Since the Islamic jurisprudence is the most important determinant of the necessity or non-necessity of governmental behavior in Islamic jurisprudence, this article intends to examine one of the most important political actions, namely electoral participation, from a jurisprudential perspective. In this regard, we have first considered this action in terms of "right" and "duty" and have shown that people have the right to govern in order to provide them with a platform for political participation. In the next step, once the right is exercised, it is imperative for the people to participate in this context, the most important of which is to be present in the present election. To prove this claim, we refer to the religious texts and sources of jurisprudence with a jurisprudential approach, and we have therefore focused on three main reasons which include: 1. the necessity of maintaining the system and maintaining its authority, 2. the position of caliphate and the responsibility of the people, 3. Authorities in the Al-Faragh area.

Reluctance is one of the most important jurisprudential legal rules regarding the civil liability of the state, whose role in proving and rejecting civil liability has been underestimated. According to this rule, the guarantee is transferred from bank to bank, and in fact denies the bank guarantee and proves the bank guarantee. Now, regarding the civil responsibility of the state, this rule can be examined in various ways, in this study, in four ways: the reluctance of the Imam, the reluctant ruler, the reluctant officer, and the police. One of the results of this study is that if a government official is in Makkara, in addition to being inaccurate, he should pay attention to the criterion of rendering the loss unnecessary; In the event that an officer of the non-state reluctant to act is permitted to do so, in the event that he has acted in his jurisdiction, the government shall be liable for damages, and if he has acted outside his jurisdiction, the agent of the guarantor shall That is, without the government being responsible for that.

Most of the topics in the present day fall under the jurisprudence (special practice) of the subject, to the credit of diagnostic authority. In the common view of Shiite scholars, the rule of law is customary in identifying and defining such matters, and the Shari'a is the sole authority to express the judgment. Since expert practice is, by the way, the knowledge of the subject, the expert's quote is valid. Traditionalism in the subject of the ontology of the subject faces a major challenge, namely the neglect of the historical cultural nature of custom. Accordingly, reason is fundamentally a historical phenomenon, and every historical epoch is shaped by the grand interpretation that man has of that period of existence. Although sometimes primitive and outward-looking, it is argued that these issues are not at variance with the Shari'a, but because of the cultural nature of these issues, the development and functioning of these issues depends on the presence of the dominant culture. Therefore, the seeming acceptance of customary inventions, irrespective of their historical cultural form, creates a crisis in the practical life of Muslims and a major challenge between Sharia and custom.

According to Article (136) of the Islamic Penal Code (1392), Imamieh jurists and Iranian lawmakers consider the death penalty to be punished in the fourth degree if executed for the first three times, but the repetition of the punishment only intensifies the punishment. He knows. Contrary to this, the Imamite scholars are known to have executed some of the ta'zir offenses, but not all of them, in the third or fourth degree (imam), as the companions of the Ka'baer. The jurisprudential documentary of this quote is also the correct narration of Younis Abdul Rahman of the Seventh Imam who states: "Companions of Al-Qa'arah of the whole, therefore, against Al-Hudud Mertin, the murderer of al-Tha'il". The jurists have sentenced to third or fourth degree executions by extending the narrative of the Haddad offenses to recurrent cases of ta'zir offenses. According to the writers, this famous ruling of the jurisprudents contradicts the penal code such as the principle of temperance, the principle of the right to life, the rule of ta'zir al-don al-Hadd, and some of the documentary and bribery challenges, and thus the death penalty documented in this jurisprudence, It won't be legitimate.