MAQALAT WA BARRASIHA
Year:2004 | Volume:36 | Issue:74(3)|Papers Count:10

Marriage and famiIJyconstitute one of the foundamental teachings of Islam. The aim of marriage is to bring about peace and quiet among men and women, in the light of which they can improve and refine their morals and train their children wrrectly. It goes without saying that one can attain that aim only through understanding, compatibility, spiritual and intellectual sameness, moral and epistemic harmony among couples. An analysis ofthe concept ot-kafa at (compatibility) and Quranic and narrative criterion in this regard from the viewpoints of the Muslim jurists suggests that the only factor behind a successful marriage and righteous family, apart from wealth, beauty, knowledge etc. is to take into account the criterion of religion in marriage. Most social psychologists, following their empirical investigations put emphasis on compatibility in marriage.

One of the well - known and controversial legal rules is that of htlman. Some of the scholars attributed certain exceptions to this rule and concluded that it lacks any generality, while the absoluteness of this rule has ruled out any exceptions. This article is an attempt, first, to prove the general nature of this rule and second, to refute the possibility of exceptions in this rule.

Who are the direct addressees of the Quranic verses? whether the addressees should be present or include those people who arc not present and will be present in the future. Addressing depends on three elements of addresser, addressee, and address. Their temporal separation is not possible. Rationaly speaking, it is impossible to address absent or non - existent. So how does the Quran address the absents and non - existent people? It goes without saying that we arc in need of two kinds of foundations to justify its theoretical and practical consequences. One is rational, the other one is linguistic foundation. This article tries to examine the views of three great jurists: Akhand Khurasanl the author of Ki;!ayat{l1- usal, Diya al - Din IraqI the author of Maqalm al - usul, and Imam Khomeinl the author of Minhlij alwusuI

To reject the validity of dimlin mli lam yajib may bring in its wake the question of how we can justify most current and inevitable contracts and transactions among real and legal people. Can we reject their validity? Can wc justify them without considering them as an extension of dimlin mu lam ya/ib? This article is an attempt to study the proofs that are used to reject the validity of dimun mu lam yajib, examines the different views in this regard, and presents a proof to support dimlin mli lam yajib. In this way. the author gives a new answer to the woovementioned questions. That is, by correcting diman ma lam yajib and disproving the jurists proofs in its rejection, there will be no need to the scholars of Islamic law to trouble themselves and present unreasonable solutions for justifying the current inevitable transactions.

By the term aqilah from the viewpoint of Islamic fitqaha means those who were living in a big family or tribe. After the advent of Islam "the law of aqilah", with little change, was confirmed, for this law was in harmony with the tribal life of those days. The articles 305 - 314 of the "law of the Islamic penalty" contains "the law of aqilah ". A question may arise whether this law was confirmed by Islam for all periods and societies. Some offuq{Tha and Islamic jurists criticize this law, while some of them defend it. This article tries to study this issue comparatively from the viewpoints of the fuqaha and Islamic jurists.

The compliance (£jab)and acceptance (qabul) are two basic elements of Islamic transactions and contracts. There are two kinds of acceptance and compliance: verbal and in act or actual ones. The latter is called muatat. Muslim Jurists (filqaha) hold that many Islamic contracts and transactions are concluded either verbally or in act (MUlltat). The issue of marriage (bab al- nikllh) pertains to the section of contracts in the Islamic law books. It means that the conclusion of marriage (nikcrh) needs both compliance and acceptance. One may raise the question of whether the conclusion of a marriage be fullfilled without a verbal contract. In other words, can a contract in act (mulltllt) replace the verbal one in marriage? The present article discusses the juridical principles and arguments of the abovementioned question. First of all, it brings out the views of the main Shlite and Sunnite jurists on the validity of a verbal contract to fullfil a marriage. It proposes the jurists reasons against marriage in act (niklih - i mUlltllt ). Secondly, it criticizes the evidence and arguments that are used to prove the validity of muMm marriage. The writer hopes that all juridical researches and jurists innovations will be supported by scholarly evidence and juridical reasons, Again, it is expected that religious scholars avoid expressing views that are not in accordance with the principles of individual inquiry into legal matters.

A great majority of the fUlfaha (jurists) arc of the view that zakrn (alms) is obligatory only in the following nine <.:ases:gold, silver, wheat, barly, date, raisins, <.:amels,mws, and sheep. Some of the jurists su<.:has Sayyid Murtada, Shaykh Tusl, and Ibn Zuhrah approve of it in acmrdan<.:ewith all others. There are certain jurists, tradationalists, and contemporary rescar<.:herswho are not in agreement with this idea and hold that zakm should be obligatory in other <.:asesas well, although this view was not recieved positively by earlier Shl I jurists. Following some changes and developments in mans life and sources of wealth, this view has drawn the attcnsion of contemporary jurists. The present article tries to explore this issue and study the foundations of this theory with referen<.:eto those jurists who support this theory.