Jurisprudence and Fundamentals of Islamic Law
Year:2017 | Volume:50 | Issue:1 |Papers Count:11

For the incumbency of zakāt on a person for a property, several conditions are taken into consideration in Shi’ite jurisprudence, some of which are obliged to the owner of property and others concern to property. For property, being owned by the person is necessary but in some cases, individual ownership has been non-deployed and with the realization of some elements it disappears, such as the wife's ownership of dowry before consummation or customer’s ownership over the object of sale at the time of put option. Jurists, without a clearly articulation of non-deploying of ownership and review of its interference with the ruling, have only discussed on zakāt in some instances of non-deployed property. With assessment of the reasons and statements of the jurists and their analysis it can be concluded that non-deployed property is a concept beyond lack of integrity of the property and non-compliance of capture in terms of involvement in the ruling of the issue, and it is necessary to analyze each of those instances in gaining ownership and power on capture.

Object of right is sometimes “debt” and sometimes “object”. Waiving the right of “jus in personam” is called “remission of debts”. Avoiding the objective right is called “relinquishment”. Abandoning the right of ownership in imāmiyya jurisprudence has not been discussed independently and the jurisprudents themselves have pointed out this matter pertinently under some branches like abandoning the property, abandoning the camel in the dessert due to fatigue, abandoning goldsmith’s dust, abandoning drowned ship in the sea and the similar issues. In article 178 of Iranian civil code the avoidance of proprietor has been dependent upon “the possibility of property ownership through another object that can pull this ship out of the sea”. According to the renowned majority of the jurists, relinquishment is waiving the right of property but there is controversy as to what constitutes the authenticity of. The narrations also confirm the voiding nature of relinquishment. Nonetheless, most of the Islamic jurisprudents have flawed the documents and the evidences of such narrations and have not incorporated such meaning into relinquishment. In addition, this article will discuss the examples of relinquishment through a posteriori reasoning in Islamic jurisprudence.

The issue of confusion between rights and judgments and the ways out of this challenge and contrast are the fundamental debates in the field of law and jurisprudence and sometimes other fields of human sciences such as ethics and politics. Identifying and argument about the principles and general regulations and rulings in this case, such as rules and regulations in inference in wrong cases between right and law and determination and distinctions is faced with various viewpoints and comments, from among which five theories have been considered important. Principality of judgment, the theory of non-rightfulness, theory of reference to the appearance of texts, detailed theory, and proportionality between the sentence and the subject theory. Since the main fundamental problem and challenge in this issue is the non-attention of the learned scholars to the criteria and capabilities of right for relinquishment, transference, and the reason for the lack of these capabilities in some referents of right, some rights have such capabilities and some have no such capabilities and will therefore be confused with judgment. In this article, the presented theories are revised and criticized and the proportionality between judgment and subject theory is analyzed and provided as a solution for this problem in appropriate evaluation of the relations between judgment and its subjects.

Iranian Legislature has recognized the rule of darʼ (not enforcing punishments (ḥudūd) in cases of doubt) in articles 120, 121 of the Islamic penal code (1392) and has removed any criminality, responsibility and punishment due to this rule in doubtful cases. However, the legislature in other articles of this code, especially the articles 307, 308, 311, 114 ,115 has passed regulations on the basis of istiṣḥāb principle (legal presumption of continuity of the status quo in doubtful cases), some of which contrast with the necessities of darʼ rule, such as considering the crime intentional at the time of doubt about the perpetrator’s not having free will while committing the crime, providing retaliation for the perpetrator at the time of doubt about his insanity while committing the crime and considering the criminal entitled to punishment at the time of doubt about his repentance before the crime is proved. This article analyses these contradictory regulations and their resolutions.

One of the major barriers to security in business activities is the issue of bankruptcy, for the prevention of which the governments use all capacities to protect their financial interests. In this way, the economic order in the business system is maintained, and trade barriers and trade relations are hindered. In the imāmiyya jurisprudence, institutions such as settlement of claim (ṣulḥ) have such a function that could be an appropriate response to this need, and its manifestation can be found in Iranian Civil Law in Article 722. It is also possible to mention the capacity of institutions such as waqf and zakāt. In this research, the mediation agency, which is reflected in Article 35 of the French Trade Law, will be compared with similar institutions in the field of jurisprudence, such as settlement of claim, etc., to determine if the institutions in Iran’s law can have such a function, and in case of the negative answer, what measures can be taken for the purpose of Article 35 of the French law.

At the early Islamic era, Dirham and Dinar were two current coins in the society, thus, the holy lawgiver appointed them as a criterion for paying expiations, damages, and religious taxes. So, many decrees were based on the prevalent thought at that time upon these two coins. In the early Islamic centuries, Dirham and Dinar were known as gold and silver coins. There was always a ratio between them in terms of weight and value, usually, ten silver dirhams were equal to one gold dinar. As these two Islamic coins were put aside from daily exchanges, their ratios were gradually forgotten too. Gradually a wrong opinion was shaped based on this trend that each of these coins could be used separately as a criterion for paying religious debts, regardless of their original ratio.This trend first emerged in jurisprudence literature and then in legal texts and laws, as the legislation process based on jurisprudence began. This trend arose many problems in understanding and applying narrations and interpreting and executing some of legal terms, including law of blood money (dīya). Nowadays, while executing Islamic laws, we encounter some problems which would be solved by correcting this wrong trend. In this study, with the use of religious and historical texts, the nature and ratio between these two coins has been explained and their value ratio in all jurisprudence and legal issues established.

Self-defense as one of the accepted institutions in public criminal law with a long background is utilized as a justification of committed crime factor and eliminates legal element of the crimes. In the new Islamic Penal Code (enacted in 2013), self-defense has been more progressively legislated. Specification of some terms such as need for the observance of defense steps, necessary defense, primary defense, relying on reasonable evidences or rational fear, equalization of the executer officers of justice with other officers and adopting clear attitude toward imperfect self-defense are considered as positive features of the new Islamic Penal Code, while it contains some controversial items including change of the burden of proof. In this article the concept and terms of self-defense in new penal code have been recognized.

The cause of discrepancies regarding enjoyment or deprivation of illegitimate child from rights within family concerns the issue of relation because there are discrepancies among the jurists regarding the relation of illegitimate child and these different views are the origin of discrepancies among the jurists regarding deprivation or enjoyment of rights within family, about which there has been two tenets among the Shi’ite jurists. The first tenet, which is advocated by earlier jurists and some contemporary ones, repudiates the relation of illegitimate child to the parents and consequently reject the application of all the rights concerning this relation except those rights which are proved for caution purposes or a specific cause, like the marriage between the parents. The second tenet that believes in the relation of illegitimate child to the parents is the tenet of contemporary jurists, which approves all the rulings for this relation, which are concerned to this relationship except the right which is denied for a specific reason like heritage between those two. In the present study, with regard to a series of proofs, we have proved the first tenet, which is the reference of civil code article 1167.

The possibility of systemization based on jurisprudence is somewhat doubtful, but a jurist, with a comprehensive view of jurisprudential rulings, can see a certain order among the judgments. Accordingly, a jurist must follow the jurisprudential rulings in search of the discovery of a system that fulfills the needs of mankind in various fields of social life. This section, which contains fixed elements, can play its role well if it considers the element of flexibility alongside the fixed constants. The manṭagat al-farāq, which is filled up by the ruler, ensures the historical and social needs that may exist at any time. In this way, jurisprudence provides a complete system that can withstand any non-religious attitude. Although mentioned in the works of Martyr Sadr, the explanation of the nature and extent of the manṭagat al-farāq is criticizable. The authors in this essay, with regard to the two domains of authoritative and non-authoritative subjects, have explained the true position of the manṭagat al-farāq and presented a new perspective on this issue.

What is renowned among Shi’ite jurists, is that minor ablution (wuḍū) has the meaning of the gerund, based on popular belief cleanliness resulting from acts of ablution (ritual washings–ghaslāt–and three ritual wiping touches–masḥāt) is meant for ablution. In contrast to this view, some theoreticians (uṣūlīs) believe that "ablution" has the infinitive meaning. In this paper, on the one hand the reasons each of the two groups have presented or can be presented to prove their claim is going to be mentioned and on the other hand, by bringing up the affects that each of these two principles have, will provide the ground for research on some fundamental issues such as the "implications of prohibition of corruption" and "taking wages for acts of obligation" and finally, in addition to strengthening the infinitive meaning for purification and as evidence for the theory of "Pierce" on this point, it evaluates the correctness and incorrectness of the results, which mean infinitive and gerund in some issues.

Surrogacy as a new way for fertility, in most cases is accompanied by contracting between infertile couples, surrogate mother, and the institution. Since having children is optional and the infertile couple can’t have children without assistive reproductive techniques aid including surrogacy, this question will arise as to whether each of parties can change his decision and avoid child birth or embryo creation during the embryo establishment till his birthday as they offer the zygote to the institute. The study of terminating this contract in rescission or termination format shows that rescission or termination by each of parties after 16th week that the embryo acquires spirit is not permitted at all. Also, terminating the contract between the first and 16th week is permissible only when in this time period we do not know the embryo as a human person.