The application of jurisprudence in the legislative or judicial process, often in the legal system and notably in criminal law, faces a number of challenges, including the emergence of disagreement among jurists on some topics. In order to become legislation, jurisprudential fatwas must be methodical and consistent with other regulations. The purpose of this article is to deconstruct a few selected fatwas that have been used in legislative and judicial proceedings. For this purpose the quantifiable metrics of 1-Guardian jurists' (Vali-ye faqih) fatwas, 2-popular jurists' fatwas, 3-the final opinions of the Islamic Republic of Iran Guardian council's jurists, 4-the fatwas of the most highly educated jurists, and 5-the efficient fatwas that are most related to the interests were investigated. Finally, based on the aforementioned quantifiable metrics, a fatwa that is more efficient and has jurisprudential validity will be introduced. This article, in addition to demonstrating the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran's jurisprudential thoughts and governance method, also illustrates the Iranian legal system's effective capacity, in order to ensure the observance of Islamic regulations and to contribute to the development of the Iranian legal system's performance.

Ethics is the basis of social relations, in a way that when it is absent, the society gets afflicted with spiritual and psychological breaches and downfalls. We cannot separate jurisprudence from ethics. The judicial decree is the legislation by God to regulate the human life, including his acts and essence as well as the other things and matters in his life. The ethical issues are bound to the judicial decree and have jurisprudential burden. God has emphasized amiability in the verses of the noble Qur’, ā, n in various ways. Using imperative structure, He has put it at the same level as important issues such as the prohibition of worshipping non-God, benevolence toward parents, saying prayers, and paying Alms tax. One of the important points in ethical issues is specifying if an act is obligatory, recommended, prohibited, or detestable. This article aims at extracting the judicial decree of the obligation of amiability with others using jurisprudential criteria such as the refinement of the basis of the ruling, the annulment of ineffective attributes, and analogy, as well as the Shī, ‘, a and Sunnī,narrations and commentaries.

The quest of the decree transmission is one of the arguments in the judge law which refers to the announcement of the judge’s sentence to another judge.It is executed under one of these four manners: written, promise, witness, and confession.A question poses itself (in addition to these facts that the judge’s order is applicable and influencial directly) that when the judge passes a judgement is permissible or not! (under one of the four written methods).It is agreed that the written communication is not allowed, though the promise transmission is permitted.With respect to the decree communication based on the witness, there are two outlooks. All the communications of sentence according to Jurists’agreement on permission is under the confession order.The present paper is an attempt to consider the viewpoints of the Shi’ite high-position jurisconsults with their proofs in different kinds of communications as well as their analyzing and criticizing their views, so that the presence or absence of permission of the results should be recognized.

Human perfection and happiness depends on thinking and reasoning, and rationalism is defined as invitation and encouragement to contemplation and deliberation and also avoidance of restriction from wisdom and thought. Many Islamophobians believe that Islam is incompatible with rationalism. The main question in this paper is that in Islam, accomplishing this in discussions of «principles of jurisprudence» which is the science of Inferring jurisprudence and one of its resources is wisdom, how much credit is allowed for rationalism? The purpose of this paper is to prove the existence of rationalism in a high level in «principles of jurisprudence». Based on the definitions of rationalism, «principles of jurisprudence» has been one of the sciences that have been founded to remove the barriers of reasoning and explore the reality in Islam. To fulfill this objective, a descriptive and analytical research in this field has been done and fundamental issues related to this subject have been raised. Finally, we have concluded that not only is not «principles of jurisprudence» opposed to rationalism, but it has also offered the solutions, rules and regulations for thinking. It takes rationalism away from methods that have not rational credit. It also extends the scope of wisdom and it considers wisdom as one of the resources of inference of jurisprudence

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.

One of the important issues in the field of public law and political jurisprudence is the clarification of the scope of the ruling of the government and the justification for its issuance. based on the studies, it seems that the issuance of the rulling of the government as a fundamental solution to solving emerging political and social problems and issues is in the hands of a comprehensive ruler of the conditions. in various circumstances, based on the requirements of society and in line with the administration of the country, a decision is appropriate to take. This decision, of course, needs to be justified. public interest as the common benefit of all individuals as members of society is the same as the basis for the issuance of a rulling of the government on its orbit and justified. Therefore, it is impossible or necessary to make a rulling of a government based on the requirements of the day of society and the real interest of each member to the limited scopeKey words: government decree, public interest, the expediency of the government, mobait, The absolute fagihs leadership theory.

According to Article 3 of the law of civil procedure, judges are responsible to issue claims according to Islamic reliable sources, Fatwas, and legal principles when there is lack of law or ambiguity of law. Executive domains of Islamic reliable sources and Fatwas are written; therefore, they are distinguished while executive domains of legal principles are not written and they are not distinguished. But the relationship between legal principles and Islamic reliable sources are not distinguished. It is not known whether legal principles are prior to Islamic reliable sources of or not. The priority of legal principles to authoritative Islamic sources and Fatwa cannot be inferred from Article 3. Therefore judges should be free in issuing claims according to legal principles of rules or their interpretation of it. Hence, the legal principles are standards for interpretation of rules when there is ambiguity in law or as an alternative to law and as the basis for issuing claims. If the relationship between the executive territory of legal principles with Islamic reliable sources and Fatwas are clear, their distinction and performance will be better in courts.

Doctrine of Islamic punishment aims to create individual and social security for the society. Also, safety of the society is depended on stability of the foundation of family. Stoning is a fixed and necessary decree from the perspective of the majority of Islamic sects, but some groups deny it based on their different viewpoints. The judicial approach is one of the most important approaches, because in addition to consensus, numerous traditions will corroborate this decree. These traditions are divided in terms of meaning in two positions: Evidence and Proof. Therefore, although some of the opponents accept these traditions in the position of Evidence, but others reject it in terms of Proof or implementation of stoning in the era of The Prophet and Infallible Imams, and so they try to show them invalid by criticizing the text and document of these traditions too. This study, by explanatory and analytical method, checks the validity of the traditions of stoning decree implementation in the four books of Shiite. The findings indicate correctness of these traditions and implementation of stoning in the era of The Prophet (pbuh) and after it.

Islamic rulings and, accordingly, criminal rulings are divided into three categories: divine, judicial, and governmental, according to the positions of the innocent when issuing judgments. Divine decrees are fixed and unchangeable decrees that the infallible has expressed while preaching the decree of God Almighty, and judicial rulings are the injunctions that the infallible have issued when resolving enmity and conflict, and the infallible has issued a ruling in the capacity of expressing a verdict. Islamic rulings and, accordingly, criminal rulings are divided into three categories: divine, judicial, and governmental, according to the positions of the innocent when issuing judgments. Divine decrees are fixed and unchangeable decrees that the infallible has expressed while preaching the decree of God Almighty, and judicial rulings are the injunctions that the infallible have issued when resolving enmity and conflict, and the infallible has issued a ruling in the capacity of expressing a verdict.