In the Logic section of the Hikmat al-Ishraq (The Philosophy of Illumination), Suhrawardi innovatively makes the three modes (necessity, possibility and impossibility) part of the predicate, thus considering the mode of all propositions to be ‘necessary’. Insofar as the modes are also discussed in other topics in logic such as contradiction, conversion and syllogism, this innovation also influences these topics. Suhrawardi was aware of this and has shown these influences. This article demonstrates that whether Suhrawardi was aiming for brevity in discussion or whether he was intending to make all the propositions of the ‘real’, or proof-based, sciences necessary, there is no need of this reduction of all the modes to the necessary and this innovation does not solve anything.

Mulla Sadra, as the founder of transcendent wisdom, has innovations in many of his views, which are the distinguishing feature of this philosophical school from the previous ones. For example, he has obtained a new interpretation of the Seddiqin proof. The advantage of Sadra's interpretation over Ibn Sina and Suhrawardi's interpretation is based on Sadra's specific principles such as the originality of existence, graded unity of being, simplicity of existence and the possibility of poverty. These innovations are also seen in the expositions of the followers of the Sadra’ s school. Their culmination point is in the expositions of Allameh Tabatabai and the expositions that Master Javadi Amoli gives from the explanation of Tabatabai; His innovation is first in determining the exact place of the dispute, according to which the place of the dispute is the absolute status of the truth of existence, and also in correctly explaining the claim that the statement "the truth of existence is necessary (eternally)" is a first obvious proposition. So the main question is: "What are the innovations of Mulla Sadra and Sadrian sages in the seddiqin proof? " The purpose of this study is to be able to reduce the problems with the interpretations of the Seddiqin proof by correctly explaining the two exposition of Tabatabai and Javadi Amoli.

Good faith is one of the fundamental principles of international law. This principle is among the multi-layered and complex concepts that have always been discussed both in doctrine and in the practice of the International Court of Justice and other international judicial authorities. Court judges have also discussed and cited the concept of good faith in their separate opinions on different occasions. The case of Ukraine against Russia is one of the latest lawsuits filed in the International Court of Justice regarding the interpretation and implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of Genocide. In this article, using the analytical-descriptive method and referring to legal sources and the judgment of the International Court of Justice, while analyzing the case, the position of good faith in the judgment issued by the court in this case has been examined and the results obtained indicate that the International Court of Justice, citing the principle of good faith in the settlement of international claims, has played an effective role in the development of international law

“Subjective proposition” is one of the terms that are introduced in Islamic Logic and used in Islamic Philosophy. In this paper, I investigate the term’s history and show that the subjective proposition has had many meanings in different times and had been associated with many different kinds of propositions. This variety and changes in meaning have caused the subjective proposition to encounter many ambiguities both in Islamic Logic and Islamic Philosophy. In this paper, I have tried to formulate the meanings of the subjective proposition by Symbolic Logic, and thereby to provide the possibility of assessing the term. In this process, we can have a better device to test the accuracy of the claims on the subjective proposition and the correctness of its use in Logic and Philosophy.

Plastic surgery is a newly emerged branch of medicine which was developed dramatically in line with scientific development of surgery and public attention to it, particularly during the last century. In view of particular features of this branch of medical procedures, there are certain moral and legal challenges in deferent systems on the basis of the permission to perform these operations. In Iran, legislator's special consideration in paragraph 2 of Article 59 Islamic Penal Code to Judicial (religious) necessity as a legal criterion reveals the importance of attention to jurists' viewpoint about the legality of such practices.Generally speaking plastic surgery falls into three categories: Functional reconstructive surgery, which is carried out to remove malfunction of relevant organ and is considered as vital. Aesthetic reconstructive surgery which is carried out only for making certain organ of body appears beautiful, which is not regarded as natural. It is a necessity but not vital. And finally pure aesthetic surgery during which a person accepts surgery procedures only for being more beautiful. Sometimes it may be a non-objective necessity (psychological necessity). The physician should observe the religious limits and also he/she is obliged to specify the type of surgery necessity and possibility of surgery regarding the risks and complications of it.