FEQH-E AHL-E-BAIT
Year:2011 | Volume:16 | Issue:63-64|Papers Count:11

The author examines first verse of Sura 8 and sixth and seventh verses of Sura 59 to prove possessing the spoils by the legal guardian.He also refers to three types of narrations by the Infallibles. The first type includes those keeping the right to possess the spoils just for the holy prophet. The second group indicates the holy prophet's right of possessing the spoils and the infallible Imams' afterwards. The third type just supports the idea of the infallible Imams' right of possessing the spoils.The author concludes that all the spoils belong to and are controlled by the holy prophet, and thus, his successive infallible Imam would be in charge of them.

Followers of all Islamic denominations share the consensus idea that the woman being divorced should be pure from her menstruation, or if she has given birth to a child, the period of after-delivery bleeding (Nefas) should be finished. The only difference among Muslim Scholars' ideas is that whether the above condition is necessary for the authenticity of divorce and its absence invalidates the divorce, or it just completes the conditions of divorce and without it the divorcing husband has just committed a sin. Shiite Jurists and few of Sunni jurists believe that the divorce is correct just if the woman is pure. However, majority of Sunni jurists say that the divorce is correct even without purity of the wife, although her purity is an obligation for the divorcing husband.The essay ends with the discussion on the views of different Islamic denominations about divorce during the period of purity.

Examining authentic proofs in Quran and analyzing the word "Retaliation" and other related words, the author tries to present a new understanding of retaliation. He insists that "Retaliation" is never used in Quran as "an-eye-for-an-eye" punishment, but rather as "equality between the convict and the victim" considering femininity or masculinity, and being free or being a slave. Therefore, he suggests a new interpretation of retaliation verses, and specifically verse 178 of Sura 2 and verse 45 of Sura 5.

This essay begins with analyzing and criticizing the definition of "Analogy" and then the author presents his definition.He fully examines the four pillars of Analogy, i.e. principle, derivative, major legal status, and the reason, and explains their conditions. The most of the essay discusses ways of exploring the reason and criterion for a legal status. The author analyzes some terms as "Quranic Text, the required meaning indicated by the text, implication, concept, consensus, exclusion, appropriateness, unity of method, refinement of the basis of the ruling".He finally explains in which of the cases one can ignore the principle and refer to the derivatives instead.

Deception claims insist on evident difference between the real price and the contractual price. Being the majority of "Option of Deception" claims, these claims are in contradiction to the agreement of both sides in a contract and thus the defendant usually refuses to undertake the charge of deception. The claim can be made after a long time and such a claim may cause great loss to the other side. The plaintiff should not be aware of the real price at the time of contract; otherwise, the claim cannot be legally justified. The jurists disagree whether the plaintiff is supposed to be aware of the price or can justify his claim by being unaware; a disagreement which is also reflected in the judiciary system. The point is that which side of the contract is the defendant and which side is the plaintiff. According to jurisprudential texts, in all claims of deception the side which claims to be deceived is the plaintiff, whether being an expert or not. However, supporters of the opposite side are considerable in number.

This essay discusses and criticizes the explanation of dissimulation presented by the jurists, and tries to examine its type and background according to jurisprudential texts. The author studies two minor points of dissimulation: first, whether one can dissimulate by his/her own choice and without any necessity to deceit someone, and second, whether it is obligatory to dissimulate in case of necessity instead of lying.The last part of essay reviews ideas of Sunni jurists in brief.

According to Islam, the close relatives of a murderer, in case of an unintentional homicide, have the responsibility of paying the blood money. Iranian Penal Law agrees with this attitude. However, this kind of paying blood money has been objected in two ways. First, most of non-Muslims discuss that paying blood money by the relatives is in contradiction to the principle of individual responsibility and punishment. Second, many Muslim legal experts, and even jurists, believe that this system belongs to the early years of Islamic era and the tribal system of that time. Therefore, the author has tried to respond the doubts in this matter.