Islamic jurisprudence Resaerch
Year:2014 | Volume:9 | Issue:4|Papers Count:7

Oath as one of the evidences to prove claim has been normally accepted in all legal systems. Obviously, every judicial system to maintain the creditability, influence and power of oath may consider special requirements which are mainly consistent with prevailing values of that society. Since monotheism and religion are core values of Iran's society, the legislator with stressing on these values has only taken the oath in Allah's name valid. Emphasizing on the necessity of this requirement in legal disputes between Iranian Muslims, as noted Iranian and Muslim oath, is entirely reasonable and does not arise any problem or question. But the emphasis on the necessity of this requirement in cases of non-Muslim Iranians and foreigners especially non-Muslim foreigners poses a question which the law of Iran has not explicitly dealt with. So according to article 167 of Iranian constitution the answer must be sought in Islamic jurisprudence and Shari'a. The present paper has attempted to find out the answer to this question with investigation of the oath in international and interreligious litigations from the viewpoint of Islamic jurisprudence.

The main Issue of this research is to explain and evaluate the role and application of the context in the Usuli Theory of Sheikh Murtaza Ansari (d. 1281 AH). Along with accepting the creditability of context in the process of Fiqahat, he has used religious propositions, criticism of jurisprudential decisions and Usuli arguments in inference of legal order. Sheikh Ansari in the creditability of context believes in Criteria such as clear implication, not conflict with stronger reason and unity of revelation. Context of words, sentences and verses are a variety of context which are traceable in the explanations and arguments of Sheikh Ansari following the legal verses (Ayat Al-Ahkam). Limiting the range of meaning, stipulating the words omitted and attribution are considered including applications of context in the works of Sheikh Ansari.

problem of the purity or impurity of people of the book seems to be of the utmost importance, since nowadays the relationship between Muslims and people of the book has been inevitable and some questions have been raised with regard to it. Although the people of the book are commonly regarded as impure by the Shiite Jurisprudents, a great many contemporary and early Shiite jurisprudents regard the people of the Book as pure, and they, except for few Sunni Scholars, have regarded them as pure. The problem of the purity or impurity of the people of the book has to be explained since the present circumstances involve communication among people who are a different race and have different religion.Those jurisprudents who have regarded the people of the book as pure have appealed to the principle of purity and innocence and the inadequacy of the arguments advanced by their opponents. On the other hand, The jurisprudents who have regarded the people of the book as impure have appealed to some Quranic verses and traditions; even some have claimed that there is consensus in this regard. Having briefly considered the concept of polytheism, this paper is concerned to explain the arguments put forward by these two groups of jurisprudents, and provide a comprehensive analysis of the problem of the purity or impurity of the people of book. This paper is not going to examine the different aspects of this important issue in great detail.

The sixth parliament at an open session passed the law of "organ transplantation of deceased patients or patients who their brain death is certain" including a single article and three notes on Wednesday dated 1379/01/17. In this note it is brought up that the reference of organ transplantation of patients who their brain death is certain is the patient's will or his legal guardians' permission after the death. In the present paper, author analyzes and surveys jurisprudents' views and opinions regarding the possibility of authority of these two elements as the main reference of organ transplantation. The author believes that the criterion of organ transplantation as a religious order is exigency. But deceased person's will or his legal guardians' permission can not be assumed as the main cause of organ transplantation. So if these two elements are not present, the principle of organ transplantation as an exigency is allowable.

Although, In intentional murder, blood-money which should be received depends upon murderer's consent and his legal guardians (in other words, it is reconciliatory), according to Abi Basir's tradition, if a murderer escapes and can not be found, blood-money should be taken from his properties and, if this is not possible, in the next stage from his relatives, and finally from Public Treasury. There are many questions about this tradition from among which we may mention the following ones: "Does this tradition concern its own occasion or may it be generalized to cover cases such as cases in which the murderer commits suicide or is killed by someone other than legal guardians of the murdered person and without their permission? Concerning quasi intentional murder, if the murderer has no financial ability, may blood-money be taken from his relatives and then from Public Treasury? The present article discusses this tradition and questions about it.

Amongst jurisprudents, it is well-known that "the most informed jurisprudent is the most familiar person with jurisprudential disputes". One who has considered all the jurisprudential views of leaders and specialists of schools and their arguments and has accepted a special jurisprudential view reasonably, he has surely had more jurisprudential knowledge. Amongst Imamite scholars, Seyyed Murtaza (d. 436 AH) is one of the first jurisprudents who has discussed different jurisprudential views and has written some books about comparative jurisprudence. Amongst his books in this genre, the most important after Intisar is Masa’il Al.-Nasiriyyat which is composed to explain and sometimes criticize the jurisprudential views of his great grandfather (from his mother side), namely Nasir utroush. This paper concerns to study the methodology of Seyyed Murtaza in his argumentations and deductions with emphasis on his jurisprudential sources and proofs.Considering Intisar and other jurisprudential sources of Seyyed Murtaza, "the consensus of Imamite scholars" and sometimes" the consensus of Ahl Al-Bayt (AS)" has had a special place in his jurisprudential and theological views and it is employed to feel the need for legitimacy in absence of isolated tradition which is not accepted by Seyyed Murtaza and his master Sheikh Mufid, Of course Seyyed Murtaza claims that the main source of Imamite jurisprudents is unanimous traditions. and he tries to improve lmamite jurisprudential positions on the basis of Kitab (Quran) and traditions of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), even isolated traditions, and jurisprudential analogy which are not accepted by Imamite scholors or Seyyed Murtaza and his master Sheikh Mufid.

The dowry is a gift that God has given to woman and it has been discussed in various verses, but it has not been mentioned a certain amount for it. Whatever is cited for it is woman's right, and with her marriage, woman is owner of dowry, but ownership of half dowry is unstable. It is stabilized by becoming a partner or dying one of the couples or innate apostasy of man, but if it is not obtained factors of stabilization of dowry, she will be entitled to half of dowry; i.e., if the couples divorce before sexual intercourse or man apostatizes before sexual intercourse, she will be entitled to half of dowry. Also if one of the couples died before sexual intercourse, according to popular theory, she will be entitled to half of dowry; although according to unpopular theory, she will deserve all the dowry.