RESEARCH SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL OF JURISPRUDENCE AND BASES OF ISLAMIC LAW
Year:2011 | Volume:3 | Issue:8-9|Papers Count:10

In all legal systems, penalty clause is a known concept. In contrast to the legal systems governed by German-Roman system, in which penalty clause has an ancient origin, and for this reason it is in form of a codified concept, in Islamic law, penalty clause is not a codified notion, and it had been adopted from the article 1152 of French civil code, when the legislature was in charge of preparing the article 230 of Iranian civil law. Despite the fact, that French civil code has been amended to modify this notion, the article 230 of Iranian civil code, which is the only article stipulating penalty clause, has not been modified from that time, and its nature and effects is still ambiguous. Therefore, it is required to study the nature and effects of penalty clause in Iranian legal system by comparing it with its origin.

The legal point of view of instances of interference in persons convicted of crimes "Causation" is. this kind of interference, the penal code in the Section crimes merely recognized but in other crimes have our laws quiet while Causation is dedicated to the crimes has not been mentioned in most other crimes also can be achieved. Though responsible for considering the kind of a little different crimes seems to be. Basically with regard to the fact that his role in the offense is mediated, There is also the perpetrator beside of the cause, In this way the responsibility of the different arms of the community of the cause and perpetrator, the community of the cautions, … will be different.Along with other persons involved in the crime of Unknown term in our jurisprudence, laws enacted under the "moral subject" We have been enacted into law, It seems that the moral subject is considered as a cause, But with a difference the title. This paper investigates the issues surrounding the caution From the perspective of criminal law and it deals relation with spiritual perpetrator.

In the context of endowment selling, the general principle and rule doesn’t allow for selling. Those who believe in this general principle and rule refer to contracts, terms and consideration of the truth and meaning of endowment due to some reasons such as consensus, consideration of endowments issued by Imams (Peace be upon them), inconsistency of endowment selling with trinary equities (equity of God, equity of endower, equity of endowed person). Based on the various classifications of the endowment, there are various ideas about whether this general principle and rule is applied for all types of endowment or in some types this can be ignored. Some believe that one can never and by no mean ignore this general principle and rule. Some others believe that although you can ignore that in interrupted endowment, this principle and rule persist in permanent endowment. Some synoptically prescribe selling of endowment in permanent endowment. Some believe that in some occasions you can sell both endowments (permanent and interrupted). Some others by doing another classification of endowment such as direction based endowment, general endowment and special endowment have stated various views. This general principle and rule can also be considered in the top of article 349 of civil constitution. In some certain cases, civil constitution also approve of permitting endowment selling. Based on the words and views of theologians and Iranian civil constitution it can be concluded that this general principle and rule can be ignored in most of the different types of endowment if licenses for selling endowment have been offered.

The study of Emammieh jurisprudence as a legal system, leads us to the fact that Good Faith as a term with a direct legal conception has not been recognized. But this fact dos not implement that Good Faith as a rule is totally elinated from this legal system. In fact, like the legal system of England, ther is some rules and institiotions in Emammieh jurisprudence that have the basis on Good Faith withought any direct reference to the term. As an example, we can reffer to the rules such as Gharar, Tadlis, Ghash, Najash, Taghrir, Biou Al Amanat et al, that by implementing the obligation of some persons to do or not to do some actions, all dealing with the necesity of respecting good faith in interpersonal relations. However, this enforcement of obligation has not the same scope that Good Faith has in other legal systems, especially legal systems based on written law.

This article intends to explore the viewpoint of Islam about some concepts and Principle of Foreign Policy. Dealing with these Concepts and principles can provide a suitable introduction to Islamic theory of international relations and Foreign Policy. The main a assumptions in this article is that the concepts form the basis of theories and dealing with the concepts is the first step for theorizing in social science. The main question here is: what are the concepts and Islamic jurisprudence viewpoints of foreign Policy in Islam? The answer to this critical question can help us theorize in this field and also recognize the distinction between foreign Policy concepts and in the west.

Initially, it is apparent that the one, who cause the loss to someone else, must compensate the loss. But sometimes the compensation process might be disrupted due to some reasons e.g. disability of citation of loss to a person generally or partially, or the one who cause the loss is unknown or has been fled. Obviously, the loss could not stay more without any compensation. According to justice, the loss must be compensated. Totally, lawyers believe that the loss must be compensated by government. Hence, they have notified numerous features for the responsibility of the government. Some believe that government is the cause of loss and so, must pay for it. government has the responsibility against people under its obedience, so the losses without any compensation must be compensate by government because this is its shortcoming. The others believe that it isn’t government’s fault. Generally government is beneficiary in society and so it is the responsible of the compensation of the loss. Eventually, some believe that government has the social responsibility and according to social welfare, realism, justice and social cohesion theories, is responsible. In this present paper, it has been tried to investigate the responsibility of government toward the compensation of deserted losses. In this case, methods of “Masoumin” (infallibles) have been investigated and analyzed too.

copyright is the right which legislator give to creators of literary and artistic works so that they profit from economical and moral benefits of their works. these rights have acceptable basis in law. on the contrary of most opinion about no loss rule in the sheikhe ansary opinion lawfully of these rights is demonstrable. because the order of belonging to no one about copyright is harmful and harm is removed. then this right is not belong to all. in oppositeness of domination rule with no loss rule prefered no loss rule. because the limitation of aggressior results no benefits for him and his aggression have very much harms for creators.

In true religion of Islam there are conditions for slaughtering of those animals that are used as food. These conditions are defined according to specific discretions. For comprehensive development of human societies and easy access to meat products, modern tools in major level are innovated. So, one of the sensitive issue in society is adaption of these tools and methods to religious standards.In this paper we tried to investigate precisely by referring to Organic verses, anecdotes and verdicts of jurisdictions about this issue. We tried to clarify topics such as slaughtering animal by systems without human interference, welcoming slaughtering by new tools, anesthetization of animals before slaughtering and the way of telling Bismillah which is doubtful for religious people.

The principle La zarar (principle of justice) is one of the strong and fundamental legal issues related to family law and the issue of prestige and material losses for women in a house with her husband (civil law ACT 1115) and also when husband refuses to pay alimony or inability to pay that (civil law ACT 1129) and the effect of them or even in the case of long absence or missing husband (civil law ACT 1029) defiantly follow the ((la zerar fel Islam)) in addition with any other logical or quoted reasons.Upon this rule and the issues a long and beside other reasons we can prove the extent and performance of Islamic jurisprudence and it can answer to many questions especially in family law.

Futures Contract is one of prevailing contracts in stock exchange that congeal in exchange hall through the intermediation of executor. According to this contract, sides undertake to deliver and catch determined goods with obvious qualifications that are in agreement with yardsticks and standards of exchange, in definite time and with delimited price. Investigation into the legal nature of this contract specifies that there are many similarities between it and all kinds of general sale and particularly “kali b kali” sale. In spite of different opinions about invalidation of this kind of sale, it seems that there isn’t any cogent reason for invalidation of it. With investigation into the nature and conditions of futures contract and comparing it with general sale, we can say that, whit a little forbearance, futures contract is considered as a kind of ritualistic sale and in this way we can acquire legal and religious justification for this contract.