ABESTENTION RIGHT in marriage is one of the legal RIGHTs for the wife which is recognized in Shia Jurisprudence and Civil Law which means that in case of due marriage portion the wife can refrain from her duties beyond the husband until receive the whole of marriage portion. The matter which this article attempts to deal with, is whether, despite the husband's insolvency of paying the marriage portion, the wife still has a lien.Hereof, three theories of the total Islamic jurists decisions, have inferred (extinction of lien theory, non-extinction of lien theory, and the differentiation theory between knowledge and ignorance of the wife regarding the husband's insolvency). Although, Article 1085 of the Civil Law and No.708 of Supreme Court Precedent are in accordance with the second view, which is famous Shia Jurisprudence, but this research, has considered the third idea as justice and fairness, because of the action rule and authentication of the implicit extinction of lien for the wife who is aware of the insolvency of husband, and according to some contemporary Jurisprudence, believe that the first paying of installment in case of ignorance of wife while the court of justice judge on Payment by Instalment of Marriage Portion, extinction of lien is more compatible with religion, family Interest and community.

Introduction: Arbitration has a contractual nature and is subject to the sovereignty of the will of the parties, but in some cases, the legislator imposed the referral of claims to arbitration on the will of the parties and caused the contractual nature of the arbitration clause to disappear or be limited. By doing this, he has placed the arbitration outside the will of the parties. This issue causes some moral conflicts in the discussion of compulsory arbitration. Therefore, this research has been done with the purpose of examining the position of compulsory arbitration in Iran's legal system and the ethical challenges in it with a descriptive-analytical approach. Material and Methods: The research was a review method, in order to achieve the goal of the research, in addition to electronic education books and virtual education in this field, articles related to the research keywords from 2004 to 2022 from the databases of Civilica, Magiran, Sid, Researchgate, Science direct, was reviewed Conclusion: Based on the findings of the research, it can be concluded that compulsory arbitration in Iran has ethical challenges in the field of implementation and interpretation, the most important of which is the issue of the RIGHT to action and judicial justice. In the context of ambiguities in mandatory arbitration, even if the method of arbitration becomes ambiguous, the arbitrator has the duty to find out the will of the legislator with the principles and rules of interpretation, which creates a moral conflict for the arbitrator.

ABSTRACT RIGHT to the city is one of the most important citizenship RIGHTs that can be reduced for women under different circumstances. In this mixed research, with in-depth and semi-structured interviews, a conceptual model has been presented to explain the causal, contextual and interventional conditions effectively reducing women's RIGHT to the city. Then, with the structural equation modeling, the causal conditions affecting the RIGHT to the city have been investigated. Family, ethnicity, and physical and mental conditions were the most important background conditions that 32 women living in Ahvaz pointed to in order to influence the RIGHT to the city. Also, the participants considered politics and government institutions, law, and spatial policies as the most important intervention in the women's RIGHT to the city. City security, favorable actions with the city space, space-positive gender performance, and social welfare were among the most important causal conditions that the participants mentioned in increasing women's RIGHT to the city. Causal modeling showed that the most influential reason for reducing women's RIGHT to the city of Ahvaz is urban space security, followed by urban policies and designs. By multiplying the causal path, it is 0.84, followed by urban planning and design with a coefficient of 0.79. Governmental and executive institutions should pay more attention to women's RIGHT to the city through the establishment of better laws, the design of suitable spaces with individual differences, especially gender, and, of course, with an emphasis on women. The creation of safer places in the city for women while increasing the livability of the city for citizens improves women's RIGHTs in urban spaces Extended abstract Introduction The RIGHT to the city is a universal RIGHT consisting of several instances. Since the RIGHT to the city enables the city inhabitants to access and enjoy the urban life benefits freely, it is tantamount to the RIGHT to freedom. The RIGHT to the city, the RIGHT to freedom of building and rebuilding cities, is one of the most valuable and, at the same time, the most neglected human RIGHTs. Among governments, NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) and political activists in all scales, the RIGHT to the city is often conceived in a legal meaning. In this sense, the RIGHT to city includes a set of distinct RIGHTs to urban resources and services, shelter, public space, clean water, and education that must be available to all, regardless of social or economic status, the bearers of such RIGHTs are urban dwellers and their guarantor is the government. This legal conception of the RIGHT to the city emphasizes universal and individual RIGHTs in the global liberal institutional order. The ultimate normative purpose of a legal RIGHT to the city is that the government legally encodes and enforces the set of RIGHTs constituting the RIGHT to the city. Justice and equality have been considered since long ago; however, injustice and discrimination are still visible in cities. Among all kinds of injustices and discrimination, gender equality has been a subject marginalized in all ages. In Iran, the need for urban spaces for women in accordance with the civil needs of citizens in daily life is felt. In Iran, factors such as various types of urban violence and insecurity, which generally make women victims, have reduced the possibility and desire for their presence and participation in public. Because the spatial, temporal, official and unofficial divisions in the city have caused some spaces to remain far from the reach of women. In this research, we intend to deal with the most important factors that cause women not to enjoy one of their most essential human RIGHTs, which is the RIGHT to the city.   Methodology This research, which is practical in terms of purpose, has been done with a confirmatory mixed method; first, it tried to present the most important contextual, interventional, and causal factors effective in reducing the RIGHT to the city of women in the form of a conceptual model by the approach of grounded theory, and then confirming the defined causal structure with the help of structural equations modeling. The population in this research is Iranian women who are exposed to gender injustice and do not have the RIGHT to a desirable city. Research participants have a deep experience of undermining their RIGHT to the city and are interested in sharing it and cooperating with the researcher. Sampling was purposefully selected from women with the least amount of the RIGHT to the city. The qualitative sample of the research was 32 people, and the quantitative sample was 420 people. Due to the mixed nature of the research and the use of the data-driven theory approach and, afterwards, structural equations to collect the data, the interview was used in the qualitative phase and questionnaires in the quantitative phase. The interviews were done in-depth, face-to-face and semi-structured. The open-ended interview questions were conducted in a calm environment without the presence of a third person, and the time of the interviews varied according to the conditions of the interviewee. The questionnaire used in the research has ascertained an instrument that evaluates the contextual and causal components and factors related to the RIGHT to the city in the form of self-declaration items. The data obtained from the interview, after being implemented in the form of text, were analyzed and classified with the help of directed content analysis. In order to investigate the causal structure of the RIGHT to the city, structural equation modeling would have been helpful. Analyzes were performed with the help of LISREL 8.8. To estimate the causal path coefficients, the iterated maximum likelihood method was used and the overall fit of the causal structure model of women’s RIGHT to the city was carried out by Chi-square statistic. And, of course, the most important fit indexes of the model, such as absolute fit indexes, incremental fit indexes and Parsimonious Normed Fit Indexes (PNFI).   Results and discussion Directed content analysis helped us to identify the factors reducing the RIGHT to the city and its subclasses of Iranian women. Conditions affecting women's RIGHT to the city are divided into underlying conditions, causal conditions, and intervening conditions. The most critical underlying conditions were family, age, ethnicity, and physical and mental characteristics. At the same time, environment security, urban actions, social welfare, and space gender functions constituted the essential intervening conditions, and politics, governmental institutions, law, and city spatial policies included the most important intervening conditions. Causal modeling also showed that the factors influencing women's RIGHT to the city are the most influential to the least influential in the form of (1) security of the city environment, (2) urban policy-making, (3) gender function of space, and (4) interaction with the city. Security is one of the most important and influential factors that can decrease or increase the RIGHT to the city for women.   Conclusion The RIGHT to the city, which is considered one of the most fundamental RIGHTs of citizens, is trampled or reaches its lowest level due to underlying reasons such as the gender of individuals or their families. In this case, women are more vulnerable than the men. In such a way, causal conditions such as environmental security or urban actions and, of course, welfare have made this gender difference in the use of city space deeper and more complicated. Meanwhile, the role of governments and sovereignty in legislation and policies should not be neglected to reduce the RIGHT to city for women. Our explicit suggestion is for governmental institutions and executive agencies to pay more attention to women’s RIGHT to the city through the establishment of better laws, the design of more suitable spaces in the city, the design of urban spaces away from any gender discrimination only with the view of equal access for all and the creation of safer places for the women living in Ahvaz.   Funding There is no funding support.   Authors’ Contribution All of the authors approved the content of the manuscript and agreed on all aspects of the work.   Conflict of Interest Authors declared no conflict of interest.   Acknowledgments We are grateful to all the scientific.

During the history of human ideas many changes of thoughts happened of which can be counted ocuerrence of doubt in self-evident ideas. One of those self-evident ideas is the relation between RIGHT and religion. Though in religious thought there can be no doubt in inseparability of RIGHT and religion, as soon as theism was replaced with humanism, it was opposed to doubt. This paper, therefore, has intended to study religious RIGHT and irreligious RIGHT. To do so, theological, epistemological, ontological and humanistical principles of the latter have been introduced and critically studied. And finally the view of the paper on behalf of religious RIGHT has been explained.

Undoubtedly, the RIGHT to life is the most important of all RIGHTs. Regarding this point, the fundamental question is, who has the authority to make laws and take action resulting in humans being killed? In response to this question, in this paper, I aim to defend the thesis that only God has the (moral/legal/religious) authority to make and issue the laws surrounding life and death. So, it is rational to believe that the RIGHT to life is restrictively a Divine RIGHT and not a human RIGHT. The paper is organized as follows: after introducing some elementary points and definitions, two arguments in favor of the above thesis will be formulated. In the first argument, by laying out some thought experiments, it is shown that human laws concerning civilians’ life are paradoxical and implausible. The second argument is based on exploring the origin of the RIGHT to life. In the last part of the paper, some implications and advantages of the favored thesis will be stated in brief.

Each of law schools is defining the "RIGHT" based on its epistemological foundations. In "legal positivism" the term of "RIGHT" is separate from any norms and values and only spoke the "ruler command" as the "RIGHT" because of the impossibility of an empirical science in value judgment and the claim of “the separation “is” from “ought to”. But in Islamic law the term "RIGHT" is apart from "ruler command" (law) and different and the "ruler command" (law) must be based on "RIGHT".Because norms and values has objective criterion, which provides the ability to measure their truth or falsity based on no monopoly of science in experimental science. And thus, the norms and values is going to a subset of science. Although there are some similarities between Islamic Law and Some branches of natural law regarding to the concept of "RIGHT" and may sometimes lead to the same conclusions in some branches, they are different in some results and modality of explanations and descriptions. The "RIGHT" in Islamic thought is "what is entirely consistent with real rules and objectives of universe". On the other hand, what is entirely consistent with real rules and objectives of universe, is "Sharia". Thus, the concept of "RIGHT" is inextricably linked with real rules and objectives of universe on the view of fixity and "Sharia" on the view of proof.

Involvement of people’s volition in the scope of women’s RIGHT is one of the challenging subjects in this scope. The possibility of transferring or dispossessing of this RIGHT is a discussion which has a long history. The following question can be asked in any RIGHT that exists in women’s RIGHT scope: is it possible to dispossess the RIGHT or transferring or rendering its possession and involvement of “permission” and “declared volition” in its “constriction and expansion“ and “dispossession”? The answer of the above question, ultimately relates to RIGHT or obligation of the one who is in the RIGHT. Although, expressional RIGHT has the capability of transmission and dispossession and the declarative and written volition of the person in personal privacy has a crucial role in preservation and dispossession of the RIGHT and also its constriction and expansion. While the judgment (obligation) is unsusceptible of being invaded by people’s volition in transferring and dispossession and substantially is concentrated on its advantages, disadvantages and issues. So, the judgment can’t be dispossessed but by negation of the issue. The methodology of recognition of RIGHT from judgment in the scope of women RIGHT is requisite attention which is contemplated in this paper. Paying attention to commonalities, judgment and subject relations, written informative predicates, existing public goods and the RIGHT of the God are some of the scales which are discussed to catch the purpose of the study.

The aim of this paper is to defend the following thesis: It is rational to believe that the RIGHT to life is restrictively a Divine RIGHT and not a human RIGHT; that is, only God has the (moral/legal/religious) authority to make and issue the laws surrounding life and death. This paper is structured as follows: after some introductory points are given, two arguments in favor of the above thesis will be formulated; the first argument is based on the fallibility of human knowledge and judgment, and the second argument is based on the rejection of the human RIGHT to life because of its implausible implications. Finally, some implications and advantages of the favored thesis will be explained briefly. Introduction Concerning the above questions, two main approaches are Natural RIGHTs Theories and Legal Positivism. According to the first, the origin of the RIGHTs is natural laws (Kelsen, 2006: 392), and the main properties of the laws are Universality and Immutability. (Freeman, 2014: 128-9) Hence, the proponents of this approach try to find a solution to the question of how and why a natural law can produce a rational basis for the legitimacy of human RIGHTs and make justified decisions about them. The famous slogan of this group is: “Unjust laws are not laws.” (Finnis, 2020)Natural RIGHTs Theories can be placed into two groups. According to the first, natural RIGHTs are stemmed from Divine Will since men are the creatures of God. The proponents of the second group, however, have tried to secularize natural laws. According to them, natural laws are the ontological implications of Human nature such that even God cannot change or remove them. As Hugo Grotius, one of the founders of this school, says natural laws were valid even if there would not be God. (Bix, 2010: 215) So, human nature qua human nature is the origin of human RIGHTs.At any rate, in all these approaches, despite all differences, the RIGHT to life is one of the most important RIGHTs, if not the most important, at least for the simple reason that without it other RIGHTs are useless and pointless. The RIGHT to life simply means that a human being has the RIGHT to live and, nobody, including governments, can try to end her/his life.Now, concerning the RIGHT to life, the main question is who and which source has the RIGHT to make laws, issue judicial rulings, and issue death penalties. To find the answer, in this paper, I will try to defend this thesis: It is rational to believe that the RIGHT to life is exclusively a Divine RIGHT and not a human RIGHT; that is, only God has the (moral/legal/religious) authority to make and issue the laws surrounding life and death. MethodologyThe method of Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE) will be used to evaluate and justify the suggested theory. The outcome of IBE can hardly prove the truth of an idea. However, the method can show which theory best explains available evidence among the rivals. In other words, IBE can show that belief in the truth of which theory is more rational and justified. Results and DiscussionThis paper is structured as follows: after some introductory points are given, two arguments in favor of the above thesis will be formulated; the first argument is based on the fallibility of human knowledge and judgment, and the second argument is based on the rejection of the human RIGHT to life because of its implausible implications. Finally, some implications and advantages of the favored thesis will be explained briefly.The first argument can be formulated as follows: (1) All judicial rulings made and issued by humans are fallible; (2) In the realm of irreparable RIGHTs, humans’ (individual/collective) wisdom is not legitimately allowed to issue fallible legal judgments; (3) RIGHT to life is an irreparable RIGHT; (4) So, humans’ (individual/collective) wisdom is not legitimately allowed to issue legal judgments about RIGHT to life; (5) Only humans or God are allowed to issue legal judgments/judicial rulings about RIGHT to life; (6) So, only God is legitimately allowed to issue legal judgments/judicial rulings about RIGHT to life. In the paper, it is shown that all premises of the argument are justified. So, the argument is valid.The second argument can be formulated as follows: (1) A theory is wrong if its consequences/implications are wrong; (2) One of the implications of the theory that the RIGHT to life is a human RIGHT is passing the laws by humans’ (individual/collective) wisdom according to which killing people or execution of people are allowed; (3) A posteriori, it can be shown that such laws are obviously wrong or extremely controversial; (4) So, the theory that the RIGHT to life is a human RIGHT has wrong consequences/implications; (5) So, the theory that the RIGHT to life is a human RIGHT is wrong; (6) Only humans or God are allowed to issue legal judgments/judicial rulings about RIGHT to life; (7) So, only God is legitimately allowed to issue legal judgments/judicial rulings about the RIGHT to life.It seems that premises 1 and 2 are unquestionable. Premises 4 and 5 are the consequences of previous premises. Premise 6 was explained in the previous argument. Premise 3, however, is controversial. So, this paper presents some thought experiments to justify premise 3. Consequently, the argument is sound and valid. It is worth mentioning that the two abovementioned arguments are philosophical and theological, and hence, their results dominate the limits of legislation laws. ConclusionsIn this paper, we tried to defend the theory that it is rational to believe that the RIGHT to life is exclusively a Divine RIGHT and not a human RIGHT. The implications and the scope of the theory are significant and wide. The first is that any kind of killing people, including capital punishment, is illegal unless it can be shown clearly and undoubtedly that God has allowed it. So, the number of legalized killing cases will decrease significantly. Moreover, in the case of conflict between RIGHTs, no one has the RIGHT to sacrifice the lives of people to reach other aims. Besides, some important theological and legal problems are solved or dissolved if the suggested theory is accepted. The author hopes that he can publish his notes on these topics soon.  Selection of ReferencesBix, Brian (2010), A Companion to Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory (2nd Ed.), D. Patterson (Ed.), West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.Dworkin, Ronald M. (1977), Taking RIGHTs Seriously, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Finnis, John (1980), Natural Law and Natural RIGHTs, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Finnis, John (2020), "Natural Law Theories," The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .Freeman, Michael D.A. (2014), Lloyds Introduction To Jurisprudence, London: Sweet & Maxwell.Green, Leslie & Thomas Adams (2019), "Legal Positivism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .Hart, H. L. A. (2012), The Concept of Law (3rd Ed.), Oxford: Clarendon Press.Himma, Kenneth Einar (2023b), “Legal positivism,” The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://iep.utm.edu/legalpos/Kelsen, Hans (2006), General Theory of Law and State, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Lauren, Paul Gordon (2003), “Philosophical Visions: Human Nature, Natural Law, and Natural RIGHTs", The Evolution of International Human RIGHTs: Visions Seen, Philadelphia: The University of Pennsylvania Press.Musavi Karimi, Mirsaeid (2023) “RIGHT to Life, a Divine RIGHT or a Human RIGHT? The Journal of Human RIGHTs, Vol. 18, No.1, Spring & Summer 2023 Issue 35, pp. 7-35, DOI:10.22096/HR.2023.1971570.1520Raz, Joseph (2009), Between Authority and Interpretation: On the Theory of Law and Practical Reason, Oxford: OUP.Wenar, Leif (2021), "RIGHTs", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .

Nowadays, individuals can gain fame through the media based on their abilities, luck or due to their attribution to other people. The formation of fame for individuals has two inevitable effects and risks: On the one hand, people in society are interested in knowing the details of a famous person's life, and therefore the famous person is exposed to the risk of violation to privacy RIGHT. On the other hand, because of prevalence of different types of the media, modern fame has gained commercial value, so that the suppliers use the identity characteristics of a famous person to promote their goods and services to increase their supply. To deal with these two dangers, the legal system uses two solutions: first, by using the general and pre-existing RIGHT to privacy, which is rooted in personality RIGHTs and human RIGHTs, it tries to prevent the violation of the privacy of these people. Second, by inventing a new RIGHT as the RIGHT of publicity, which is both rooted in property RIGHTs and personality RIGHTs, it organizes the commercial use of the identity characteristics of celebrities. Financial effects of this RIGHT (assignability, waivibility, descendibility, etc) must be adjusted in interaction with personality RIGHTs and public order.