A double ambiguity has been charged against Rawls’s difference PRINCIPLE (DP). Is it Maximin, Leximin, or something else? Usually, following A. Sen, scholars identify DP with the so-called Leximin. One argues here that one has to distinguish 1° the Leximin, 2° the Maximin (as rule of justice formally analogous to the maximin rule of decision), represented by the figure in L of the perfectly substitutable goods, and 3° the genuine DP. When the augmentation of inequality benefits the worse off, only Pareto-strong improvements are permitted. Leximin would also permit Pareto-weak improvements too (after the first maximum D), where only the richest improves: from (2, 3) to (2, 5), say. This is forbidden by DP. With two classes, unlike Maximin, DP has no curve of indifference and is always decisive, as Leximin is. For undecisive Rules of Justice, which admit indifferent curves, I propose to add a lexically secondary rule, to break ties. That move is able to clarify the links and the differences between on the one hand Maximin alone, with its typical indifference curves in L, and on the other hand, the DP properly understood and the Leximin, which both have no indifferent curves. With two classes of persons (best off/worse off), DP appears more egalitarian than Leximin, because it's secondary rule is MinIn (Minimization of Inequality). But the intuition behind the distinction is that it cannot possible “fair” that only the best off improves in a productive social cooperation.

The Big Five Inventory (BFI) is one of the most widely used personality questionnaires, but very few studies have been conducted on its psychometric properties in Iranian population. This study was carried out with the aim of studying the psychometric properties of the BFI questionnaire. For this purpose, 390 university students in Tehran (210 girls and 180 boys) with an age range of 18 to 56 years (M = 27.52; SD = 8.79) were selected using the convenience sampling method and completed BFI and NEO-FFI questionnaires. Cronbach's alpha, multitrait-multimethod matrix, and confirmatory factor analysis were used to estimate the psychometric properties of the questionnaire. The result of the confirmatory factor analysis showed that 15 of the 44 items did not have a strong factor loading (higher than 0.40) on the corresponding factors and were therefore removed from the questionnaire. The fit indices showed that the Persian version of 29 questions (BFI-29) with 5 factors has a good fit with the data. The reliability analysis also showed that the range of Cronbach's alpha coefficients of the factors is from 0.70 to 0.79. The lowest Cronbach's alpha coefficient was related to agreeableness factor and the highest was related to conscientiousness. The findings from the multitrait-multimethod matrix showed that the BFI-29 questionnaire has good convergent and divergent VALIDITY with the NEO-FFI questionnaire. In general, based on the results of the present study, it can be said that the BFI-29 questionnaire has desirable psychometric properties and whenever a short tool for personality measurement is needed, this questionnaire can be used.

what is being discussed and investigated in this article is the PRINCIPLE of correctness of unilateral acts. The PRINCIPLE of correctness is one of the norms that applies to most branches of jurisprudence (Fiqh) including transactions and acts of worship. The majority of Islamic Jurists (Fuqaha) are of the belief that the bases for the VALIDITY of the PRINCIPLE of correctness, like “ fulfill obligations” and “ trade by mutual good-will” , include unilateral acts as well. In contrast, some Islamic Jurists have raised objections to the enforcement of the PRINCIPLE of correctness in unilateral acts. After reviewing and criticizing these objections, we will conclude that the PRINCIPLE of correctness is also applicable to unilateral acts. Therefore, we should come to the view that Article 223 of civil law which stipulates that “ any transaction made is predicated on correctness. . . ” also includes unilateral acts. Accordingly, after the attainment of the conventional title of unilateral act and doubting its conditions on the basis of the PRINCIPLE of correctness, we can affirm the correctness of that unilateral act.

Unlike contracts, which are bilateral legal acts, unilateral legal acts (īqāʿāt) are performed by a single party. However, if there is doubt about the VALIDITY of a unilateral act, can the PRINCIPLE of VALIDITY (aṣl al-ṣiḥḥah) be invoked? Does the PRINCIPLE of VALIDITY apply to all types of unilateral acts? In response to this question, the researcher—based on library sources and through a descriptive–analytical method—briefly explains unilateral acts and identifies specific instances where the PRINCIPLE may apply. Doubt regarding the VALIDITY of a legal act provides a basis for invoking the PRINCIPLE of VALIDITY; nevertheless, this PRINCIPLE cannot be universally and unconditionally applied to every legal act. Additionally, legal acts are categorized based on the involvement of parties into contracts (ʿuqūd) and unilateral acts (īqāʿāt). In contracts, due to the bilateral nature, the likelihood of doubt is generally lower.

The issue raised in this article is primarily based on the claim of mistake and the PRINCIPLE of VALIDITY in contracts. The issues related to mistake have been detailed in articles of Law 199, 200 , and 201 of the Civil Laws / Codes. Article 223 of the Civil Law deals with the PRINCIPLE of VALIDITY and plays a significant role in raising claims / law - suits.The plaintiff's ignorance and errors always contradict the PRINCIPLEs of VALIDITY in transactions. On the other hand, the legal presumption on erroneous transaction leads to VALIDITY. How can one make a compromise between these two PRINCIPLEs?A)First of all, the limits of the applicability of the PRINCIPLE of VALIDITY, from the jurisprudents' perspectives and views, is based on two criteria:1- Its trend in all conditions and under all circumstances, verified or unverified, as determined and accepted in this paper as a general PRINCIPLE.2- The PRINCIPLE of VALIDITY in all parts and conditions, as well as unverified / unfounded conditions. B) There are differences between these two bases disregarding the VALIDITY or lack of VALIDITY of the plaintiff's errors.In the present article, this issue has been dealt with.C) The PRINCIPLE of VALIDITY is to be given priority regarding the PRINCIPLE of contradiction whether the cause to the contract is a claim of ignorance or not, whether the claim of error is a common or a civil law.This perspective is in concordant with all social interests, the solidity of contracts as well as the individuals good wills and other PRINCIPLEs of contracts.

The majority of Shiite and Muʿ tazilite theologians have endorsed the VALIDITY of the PRINCIPLE of grace (qâ ʿ idat al-luṭ f). In this paper, I begin with an account of the PRINCIPLE of grace. It turns out that things by which compliance with God is enabled can be proved by the PRINCIPLE of “enablement ” (tamkî n), and once these come to exist, the PRINCIPLE of grace arises as additional to the PRINCIPLE of enablement. Next, I consider the VALIDITY of the PRINCIPLE of grace. The theory seems to face serious challenges. First, it is necessary by light of human reason that God should create things without which obedience of God is not possible, but human reason never rules that God should create what makes one closer to obedience. Instead, sometimes God’s wisdom requires that He does not exhibit grace as a test for His servants. Second, there are things which, by the PRINCIPLE of grace, should have come into existence, but they have never existed. To solve the second problem, one might claim that the PRINCIPLE of grace does not encompass personal instances of grace, but the proposed solution faces its own sorts of problems.

Doubts about the "Taklifee" ruling and not finding the "Amareh" is the way to adhere to the practical PRINCIPLE in order to remove the surprise in the position of action. Subjects of practical PRINCIPLEs may be accompanied by necessary, accompanying or required, whether Sharee or non-Shariee and whether direct or indirect. The scope and VALIDITY of each of these are examined in the PRINCIPLEs of jurisprudence under the title of "Mosbet" PRINCIPLE. Regarding the VALIDITY of the "Mosbet" PRINCIPLE, there is a difference of opinion among the scholars. The scholars of the PRINCIPLEs that do not consider the "Mosbet"  PRINCIPLE to be a proof have insisted on it for reasons, the most important of which is the existence of conflict; This means that the "Mosbet"  PRINCIPLE can prove non-Sharee works (rational or normal works) for  what it  indicates, which in this case, is in conflict with the PRINCIPLE of the absence of said works. Some scholars do not consider the "Mosbet"  PRINCIPLE to be valid and authentic due to the existence of such an obstacle. On the other hand, some like Sheikh Ansari believe in the "Hokumat". From his point of view, basically, there is no conflict in the issue that can be used to invalidate the " Mosbet" PRINCIPLE. In this article, while examining and criticizing the existing views with an analytical method, the conclusion has been reached that the issue under discussion cannot be definitively considered as an example of conflict or "Hokumat", but in a new classification," Tafsi"  must be belived; In this way, some examples of it are examples of conflict according to some bases, and some examples are examples of "Hokumat" based on other bases. Therefore, it is not possible to deny the VALIDITY of the "Mosbet" PRINCIPLE by insisting on the problem of conflict.

According to the Afghan Constitution, in the absence of relevant statutory laws, courts shall refer to Hanafi jurisprudence. However, there are other explicit and implied constitutional conditions, which should be taken into consideration, including compliance with the PRINCIPLE of legality of crime and punishment, which as one of the most fundamental PRINCIPLEs of modern criminal law is guaranteed not only in the current Constitution but also in all the six most recent Afghan constitutions. However, Article 1 of the Afghan Penal Code of 1976 stipulates that it regulates only Tazirat punishments and refers Hodud, Qisas and Diyat punishments to Hanafi jurisprudence. This article is repugnant to these explicit and implied constitutional conditions, and as a “weak law” can be ignored. Generally speaking, although Sharia enjoys a prominent position in the Afghan Constitution, its status is different from the Iranian Constitution, which governs generally and absolutely over all articles of the Constitution itself, as well as over all other laws and regulations. Besides, the legislator’s approach in the subsequent articles of the Afghan Penal Code of 1976 shows that even the legislator himself did not believe deeply in his own Article 1. Moreover, among recent laws, there are some examples that implicitly confirm the fact that Article 1 is not valid.

This study describes the place of polygamy in the present society based on Quran. Data has been derived from Quran, interpretation, and the books written by religious science experts. Descriptive and analytical method has been used in this article. The subject of polygamy has been always investigated from different and contradictory viewpoints of experts. Documentary about polygamy according to Quran, the PRINCIPLE of moral and legal sociability, some viewpoints related to religious preference, the approval of polygamy, reverence and also judge's prohibition in non-emergency are not compatible with aforesaid PRINCIPLE. But based on Quran's viewpoint, monogamy is the PRINCIPLE and it says, in contemporary society, polygamy means social abuse in unnecessary situations. Because of the need of an appropriate behavior with women in contemporary society, men are never allowed to remarry since it can cause their wife’ s suffering. In addition, referring to the related verse based on limitation and reformation of Arab customs of revelation age is a clear referent of this fact.