Background and Objectives: The aim of this study was to explain the examples of "the Jurisprudential Rule of “ Osr o-Haraj" or Denegation of Intolerable Hardship in the occurrence of congenital anomalies and genetic disorders and show that according to the current laws of the country, more of these diseases can be prevented. Material and Methods: Data for occurrence of congenital anomalies were derived from two major regional and national epidemiological studies based on 6, 465, 849 births in the country. A comprehensive review of literature was carried out on the details of ‘ Denegation of Intolerable Hardship Rule. The details of medical termination of pregnancies diagnosed for congenital anomalies and the role of ‘ Denegation of Intolerable Hardship’ principle in the prevention of birth defects were explored in several Focused Group Discussions formed by peditricians, geneticists, psychiatrists, neotatalogists and expert jurisprudents. Results: The statistical estimates indicate that there are now nearly 100, 000 births with one of the birth defects occurring every year in Iran. The total prevalence of the anomalies has more than tripled in the last 18 years. Conclusion: The occurrence of congenital anomalies and genetic disorders will undermine the gene pool of the population if preventive measures are not properly implemented in the community genetics services to control those disorders. According to the current law on therapeutic abortion, disorders that lead to the hardships of father, mother, family, community, as well as future generations may be diagnosed by the three specialists (before the 16th week of pregnancy, the time of onsetting the soul). They can then be referred for medical abortion. A minimum of 70, 000 birth defects may be avoided using the therapeutic termination of pregnancies diagnosed for congenital anomalies if the ‘ no hardship and negation of distress and constriction’ principle is suitably explored in maternal, pediatric, neonatal settings and for public health authorities.

The study of subjectivity is especially relevant to psychoanalysis since it avoids social and political qualifications, and focuses on the structure of the narrative voice. In this respect, Kristeva’s innovative psychoanalytic notion of melancholia, as an incapacitating desire not to let go of the Real m/Other, is applied in the present article to the ontological impasse of the impoverished figure of Samuel Beckett’s The Unnamable (1958, 2003). It can be formulated as an ontological shade lingering within this precarious state, cast between life and death, and seeking the unnamable Thing which would be the real silence, corresponding at last to a voice of his own, the voice of voicelessness. Kristeva’s solution for this suicidal predicament, adopted in this study, is an aesthetic resort to the poetical dimension of language retrieving traces of the dead m/Other, and the fundamental function of denegation at once affirming and rejecting the m/Other. A semiotic analysis of The Unnamable, considering, among others, the pronouns and commas will reveal a latent materiality in the text: formal derangement. We propose that, through the metaphorical dialectic of the semiotic process and the symbolic representation, the unnamable-reader achieves, on a trans-symbolic scale, a melancholy sublime, the jouissance of formlessness before the unpresentable presence of the m/Other. This will yield our interpretation of the unnamable as an idealized subject-in-process (sujet-en-process) in terms of a pure flow of words: novel as mere ‘going on.’ Therefore, the study presented here is an attempt to bring together the Beckettian destitution of the novel and Kristeva’s black sun through a jouissant dynamism of signs undermining the laws of the very language in which they are continuously generated.

Background: Abortion has never been a mere medical issue; rather, because of its widespread effects on the personal, social, economic, political and cultural matters has been almost globally noticed by governments in some way. The Therapeutic Abortion Act ratified by Islamic Assembly of Iran in 2005 followed by instruction of the Forensic Medicine Organization confirms this claim. Although, basically (ethically, religiously and legally) abortion is considered forbidden, but the Islamic jurisprudents following them, the Iranian legislator have regarded abortion as permissible in certain circumstances, due to the imposition of suffering and hardship on the religiously responsible persons and/or due to certain individual, social and other pathologies. Although the abortion due to “denegation of hardship” has been stipulated in the Act and the 5th part of the legal definitions of the Forensic Medicine Instruction, but the issue of the mother’s hardship that is the most basic topic discussed by this paper needs to be clarified more.Therefore, in this article it has been tried to examine some practical challenges of using Islamic rule of “denegation of hardships” (La Haraj) and some other implied rules of “compulsion” (Izterar) and “denegation of harmfulness” (La Darar(.Method: the study is a deep library-based one accompanied by some real case analysis through comparing with jurisprudential-legal principles and rules.Findings: The Islamic rules of ‘La Haraj’, ‘Izterar’ and ‘La Darar’ are secondary and dominant over the original rules like the banning of abortion.Though, the rules are there for inhibiting imposed pressure, applying them for every bit of situation potentially might bear some deep mundane and otherworldly consequences like the expansion of fornication, selective abortion, etc. Meanwhile, the meanings of these rules might change according to the scientific developments. Moreover, considering or not considering economic, social, psychological and other issues and also determining the dominant philosophical theory in the society are among the most important points in defining the limits of these rules.Conclusion: despite determining certain cases of the abortion in the Act of Therapeutic Treatment, the Iranian legal system is not yet comprehensive in this regard and the status of some other cases needs to be clarified. It has been proposed that different aspects of the issue are considered by the legislator in an interdisciplinary debate.

Saving patients' lives is an important duty for physicians. Regardless of the level of a physician’s skills, there is always a possibility of damage or loss in patients’ life. In jurisprudence, there is a dispute as to whether a physician is responsible if he commits medical mistakes in the course of treatment. Some scholars believe that a physician is always responsible for damages related to his professional mistakes whether he has obtained permission or not. They base their arguments on the generality of the related narrations ofajir (hired) and juridical rules such as Itlaf (destruction), Tasbib (causing damages), La darar (denegation of harmfulness) and Qorur (deception).On the other hand, some others believe that physicians are never responsible for such damages. They base their arguments on theIhsan (beneficence) rule andBara’ah (quittance) principle. They argue that physicians have not undertaken achieving the improvement result and they are merely responsible for treatment of the patients.According to Bara’ah principle, physicians could be released from such responsibility. In other words, they are always responsible unless they obtain quittance from their patients. This argument is based on the general rules of al-osr wal-haraj (denegation of hardships) in the society along with Sokuni’s narration. In addition, the necessity of commitment to conditions is another reason for this argument. Exploring the grounds of responsibility (al-ziman) and the grounds for their release fromal-ziman the latter argument proves to be more acceptable. Therefore physicians should obtain permission from the patients or their guardians before taking medical actions and also the veterinary should obtain quittance from the owner of animal. Theses evidences are stronger and they are not responsible after obtaining quittance.

The word "sabil" (way) is the most significant word in the verses denoting denegation of the unbliever's domination over the faithful. This word has different meanings in other Qur' anic verses. Although it is not defined as "domination" and "prevalence", but it has been frequently used implying the meaning of "ways of prevalence ". The exegetes, therefore, have interpred this word as prevalence in its arguments, prevalence in the Resurrection Day, outward prevalence, inward prevalence in the Resurrection Day, outward prevalence, inward prevalence of the faithful over the unbeliever. Jurisprudents, also have interpreted this word as prevalence in arguments, prevalence in law, complete prevalence and prevalence in property.Examining the context of thes verses on this issue, it is deducted that the prevalence meant is in law and legislation. It means any law that ends to the domination of the unbeliever over the faithful is not authoritative.While this verses is grammatically in "statement" form, semantically it implies order, according to which the necessity of obedience is much forceful.

The aim of present study is to find an answer to the following question: “ What is the relationship between science and Shabah (Phantom) theory from Mulla Sadra’ s point of view? ” Mulla Sadra analysis about Phantom theory is summarized based on his lexical network and special existence approach. The following 4 stages shows his analysis about the theory: 1) Detection of contents of Phantom theory, denegation of the match between external existence and mental image, acceptance of existence effect of image and introduction of image as a cause that helps knowledge acquisition with his own special existence view, 2) useful expression that shows Phantom develops knowledge for qualities and what are inexistent, 3) introducing criticisms for Phantom theory and examination of criticisms, and 4) presenting a mental existence theory that develops science for qualities and what are inexistent and it also presents scientific reasons for other existents. We show, although strongly criticizing the Phantom theory, Mulla Sadra uses this theory for developing his mental existence theory. Although we do not insist on this conclusion, we believe this view will make the puzzle of relationship between science and Phantom theory enter a new stage.

Article forty-fifth of the Iranian constitution considers the mines including oil and gas as a part of the Anfal and public wealth. Conservation is one of the most important subjects in production of oil. The study of how to finance the government expenditure is one of the subject matters of Islamic economics. According to Islamic teachings, Anfal is regarded as a main source of funding for the government expenditures. Based on jurisprudential rules like “ the rule of Itlaf (indirect cause)” , “ the rule of Tasbib (direct cause)” , the Rule of La Darar (denegation of harmfulness)", and “ the rule of Nafye Sabil (Rejection of Foreign Influence)” , each "Gheyre-syanti" (Non-conservation) method of production from oil reservoirs which leads to the loss of oil resources and accelerates the exhaustion of the country's oil reserves and results in the dependence on foreigners is not allowed. Efficiency in extraction from oil fields, development of oil reservoirs in line with the Muslim society’ s consolidation and satisfaction of its real needs, generational and intergenerational equity, referring to the intellectuals and assigning the technical tasks to the professionals are among Islamic criteria which affect the necessity of oil exploitation and its mode of operation.