JOURNAL OF ISLAMIC LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE RESEARCHES
Year:2016 | Volume:12 | Issue:42|Papers Count:9

After the contract of marriage, some rights and duties are imposed to the spouses. One of these rights is the right of subservience. One of the aspect of this right which is agreed upon by all Muslim jurists is that the wife is not allowed to get out of home without the husband's permission and if happened her act is considered "Nushuz" or disobedience and the wife who has done it is called Nashizah or disobedient and as a result of which she will be deprived form two of her rights: alimony and Qasm. About the scope of wife's duty to ask for the husband's permission, there are several views in Imamiyah Jurisprudence: a group of these jurists believes in the absolute necessity of getting such permission while another group limits this duty to the situation when her leaving contradicts husband's right of having an absolute sexual pleasure from his wife. Sunni jurists have similar views. The comparison of views expressed by both Shiite and Sunni jurists indicates that most Imamiyeh Jurists and most jurists belonging to the Shafei, Maleki and Hanbali jurisprudential schools believe in the absolute necessity of getting permission and believe that the wife is allowed to get out of home without her husband's permission only in emergency cases. In contrast, some of the Shiite jurists believe in the limited necessity of having such permission and say it is necessary only in cases when her leaving causes the husband to get deprived from accessing her for sexual purpose.

There is a disagreement among jurists about the Islamic verdict on those who are attained to a part-proprietorship, but one or more committed to steal those properties from the others. After reviewing the testimony and evidence received from jurists, the authors arrive at the conclusion that although the narrative developed by Abdullah bin Sanan implies that if one of the partners indulged to steal others properties by knowing that there is no permissibility for him to seize property without permission of the other partners, he would be subjected to HAAD punishment and that is when the stolen properties reach a quorum namely the one-fourth of a dinar which is required to make him worthy of hand amputation (according to correct quote) and if otherwise, he will not be subjected to hand amputation, it depends on whether or not the type of ownership has been specified in each part of property; according to cooperative properties policies. It also should be specified if there is a doubt whether the type of ownership, after the larceny is in compatible with that of before the larceny in each part of property. The Principle of Istishab (Presumption of Continuity) says that at the time of passing the verdict, it is necessary to consider the type of ownership even after the larceny.

The discussion regarding the requirement of guessed indications in general and the requirement of news specifically has been dealt with in our oldest principal texts, and its domain has gradually developed and incorporated issues including appearances, jurisprudence fame, lexical promises, spoken harmony, and analogy. In investigating this issue, the analysis of the viewpoints of the opponents of following of guesses (through investigating their reasons for forbidding the requirement of guesses and the inability to follow them along with discussing the abandonments due to this following) and the absolute proponents of this requirement (those who assume these reasons and abandonment as being illusion and resort to rejecting these requirements) are all taken into consideration. Dealing with the historical background and the variety of discussions leading to the development of viewpoints, in particular, in the proponents and accordingly to their categorization, the present study sheds light on the existing categories of abandonments due to following the guessed requirements, i.e., the arbitrators’ harmony including both the opponents’ and followers’ viewpoints and their rejection. It is obvious that clarifying these issues and the authority of the expansion approach can pave the way for raising discussions in other fields such as appearance, unified news and also for rejecting requirements for other indications such as analogy.

The knowledge of the parties to the transaction (sale) about the quality and quantity of both the object of sale (and the thing which is taken in return for the object sold and the defined price is taken to be the conditions, among others, for the validity or legality of the transaction. In other words, both the object of sale and the price thereof has to be known for both parties and well defined and specified in detail in terms of their quantity (weight, volume, number, …) and quality as well as other involved descriptions of quality and quantity which may have effects on the value of the two exchanged items of commodity. The evidence for the conditions laid down for the valid transaction are as follows: a prophetic hadith that rejects the chance of gain or loss in a transaction, known as hadith-e nafyi gharar, traditions and consensus; the latter, of course, has been subject to controversies. That is, though it is certain that there exits consensus of opinion to the matter in question, the ruling issued on the basis of the prophetic hadith is known to and agreed upon by both the Sunni and Shiite scholars. Hence there would be no consensus on faith in this regard. Therefore, according to Islam, any transaction is considered as valid or legitimate provided that both parties are fully aware of the transaction being carried out, and in case they are ignorant of the object of transaction, i.e., of what they are going to sell or buy, the transaction of this kind is hazardous, and thus invalid and prohibited by the Islamic Law. In the prophetic hadith we read: " the Messenger of Allah [Prophet Muhammad], may peace be upon him, prohibited a transaction that is hazardous.”

Istensna contract is a recommendation for the particular object that results in agreement between the producer and the client. There are differences in nature of this contract among jurists and lawyers. Despite the different opinions, it can be believed that Istesna is an independent contract and because object of sale does not exist in time of conclusion of contract and exists after some time in the future, there will be a conditional contract. The present article analyses recent viewpoint about Istesna.

This article deals with the impact of critical notion of Shahib Al-Orweh plus high position of the scholars of Shiite jurisprudence in the course of time. It also clarified the first appearance and the process of growth and explanation of this issue. The votes of Sahib Al-Orweh has left great impact in this domain.

Among the challenges of our modern time which have occupied the many religious people's mind, the amount of veneration and respect of the holy Canon of Islam to religious opponents is important. The cause of appearance of such questions is issuance of some rare Fatwas in this domain which are sometimes invigorated by the support of majority of the jurisprudents. One of these challenging Fatwas which can be seen in many jurisprudential books is the one that permits backbiting religious opponents. Majority of jurisprudents has considered "being a believer" as the criterion of prohibition of backbiting. The writer has concluded that the presented proofs for the mentioned Fatwa are not sufficient for proving the claim. The writer believes it is not canonically valid to consider "being a believer" as a provision in the victim for prohibition of backbiting. This point of view is against the view of the majority though, but some of recent scholars have approved it. Furthermore, this viewpoint is compatible with the wide contextual meaning of the main proofs of this jurisprudential domain and the primary maxims of the prohibition of the backbiting.