FEQH-E AHL-E-BAIT
Year:2010 | Volume:16 | Issue:61|Papers Count:8

Continuing the subject of puberty age and conditions, three points have been discussed: alms of the child's grains and cattle, being in the puberty age during the whole year, and alms of the child's merchandise.The first one comprises two opinions. The early jurists believe that the alms for grains and cattle belonging to children should be paid. On the contrary, the later jurists do not share the same opinion. Analyzing the reasons presented by both, and considering the necessity of the principle and certain narrations, the author agrees with the early jurists and proves that from many points of view.In the second one, the accepted decree is that the alms are due to pay just when the child is in the age of puberty the whole year. However, some do not believe so. Rejecting the five-fold reasons of the accepted decree, the author believes that the child need not necessarily be in the puberty age the whole year, but the age of puberty should be completed by the time that alms are due.Finally, in the third subject, it is widely accepted that the rules for alms is the same for the merchandise of a child and an adult; wherever the adult is obliged to pay the alms, so does the child and if it is of a voluntary nature the child can pay that voluntarily.

The author first introduces two groups among Companions of the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h) and their immediate successors who agree, or disagree, with wiping on shoes in ablution (Wudhu) while in travel or not. Referring to Quran and Tradition, he examines the reasons of those who disagree, and mentioning Sunni narrations which allow wiping on shoes, he criticizes the issue. He presents some questions to be answered by the jurists who agree with this issue, and finally mentions some minor disagreements on the subject.

The essay comprises six parts. The author first mentions the reasons for following a religious authority and tries to prove them referring to rational and Traditional reasons. On the other hand, he brings and answers the reasons which do not support following. Then in the second part, he asks whether one with the ability of deduction can follow someone else or not, a question to which the author responses he can follow in some assumptions. The third part, according to the author, covers "Motejazi" jurist who can give decrees just in some parts of jurisprudence, and can conditionally follow his own decree, although the conditions are difficult to be achieved. In the fourth part he notes that jurists who have not achieved the level of being "best-aware" are not permitted to give decrees. Next, he suggests that how the rules being deducted by the jurist would be enforced for the follower. And at last, he discusses the permission to follow an older decree, while deducting a new different decree, without any due responsibility.

We commonly accept that as the consequences of a certain crime increase, or the will of the doer or some other factors change, the punishment should be harsher. This can be presented as a legal or juristic principle. However, what is the criterion to pass a harsher punishment for a certain act? The public sense of severity for such an act, or the judgment of a legislator or a jurist? Can a harsher punishment be allocated to that or the legislator or jurist should consider any certain situation? One of the phrases accepted and used by some jurists is the juristic rule of "the usurper should receive the harshest sentence" which is referred to by the author. He reviews its meaning, realm, usage in jurisprudence and legislation to examine its juristic and legal validity.

Sin and Crime cannot be categorized as one, since in Shari'ah and law they can be defined differently. Their realms, purposes, composing parts and sanctions differ and this fact makes some theoretical problems when we consider penal law for any kind of sin. To solve these problems one should first understand "sin and punishment" in Islam versus "crime and punishment" in the Western penal law, and then differentiate between them. Another point to take care of is to separate characteristics of Islamic Penal System and the Western one, considering each one's purposes, realms and sanctions. In this way, the rule of "Discretionary punishment for any sin" would not blindly follow, and many theoretical problems of the matter would be solved.