Refinement of the basis of the ruling (tanqīḥ al-manāṭ) is among the important approaches in the process of legal reasoning and inference of legal rulings. By applying this procedure, one can achieve the ruling criterion and be assured about it, and thus, contrary to the analogy in deductive form (mustanbit al-‘illa), it is accepted by the Shī’a jurists.Those who have sufficient experience in inference of legal rulings and enjoy mastery of legal reasoning can undertake this task by annulment of specification using the method of probing and division.

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 holy Quran has dealt with the state of being couple as an overall state ruling all creatures as is widely understood from the verses 3 of Ra`d, referring to fruit, and 49 of Zariat, referring to all things. As shown in the paper, two views may be taken on the syntax structure of the verse 3 of Ra`d, one is widely and favorably known and the other is not. On the former, it signifies the state of being couple for all fruits, while on the latter, day and night is meant by the state of being couple. As for the expression of all things in the verse 49 of Zariat, at a glance it may seems to relate the state to lifeless beings also; yet it is clear that the problem of gender as it is found in living beings may not be found in lifeless beings. In addition, they have not any other structure of the state understandable for the addressees of the holy Quran, reminding God`s Power. As explained in the paper, the word all is commonly used for emphasizing great majority and, therefore, what is meant by the phrase is universality and vastness of the state of being couple in living beings.

What is called “the goals of Islamic law” by the Sunni and “refinement of the basis of the ruling” (tanqīḥ manāṭ) by the Shi'a is neither the nature nor the reason of the ruling, but they are the goals and expedience-seeking wisdoms behind the scenes of introducing the rules, which help the jurists make correct and right decisions. The pioneering role of Sunni scholars in the field of goal-oriented Islamic jurisprudence has allowed them to create foliage from the sturdy tree of “expedience and corruption”, to depict a whole variety of the goals of the Islamic law and to draw from each of them scientific works and practical solutions. Taking an analytical approach and using applied theorization based on written sources, the research finds that the two jurisprudential branches namely Shi'a and Sunni find the origins of the goals of the Islamic law in the duality of expedience and corruption, and, when it comes to “minor goals”, they are in agreement both in theory and practice, that is, they settle minor problems about which no instructions can be found in the clear text by means of minor goals or refinement of the basis of the ruling, although Shi'ite jurists have not taken a serious stance regarding other goals, especially “general” and “particular” goals.

The Imamiya jurisprudents, like the infallible Imams, rarely gained the opportunity to take the helm of the government and the Islamic society to directly or indirectly rule over the society. Nevertheless, at some stages a few jurisprudents had the opportunity to take the helm of the government. Perhaps among the renowned Imamiya jurisprudents, four famous jurisprudents were in one way or another in contact with the government and also enjoyed some administrative positions of their time and played an official role in the legislation of the laws and institutionalization of the Islamic government of their time. The said jurisprudents were among the antecedents at the time of the Islamic caliphate system or when a royal government was established in the Islamic society. This research is an attempt to chronologically review their personalities and their tasks. Finally, Imam Khomeini’s status among the said jurisprudents will be explained

The author tries to explain one of the most important issues regarding Islamic ruling system which is "identification and clarification of Islamic ruling system's objectives". Explaining the root of these objectives, he divides them into two categories; long term objectives and midterm objectives. Then he examines each of them.He finally concludes that although objectives of Islamic ruling system are theoretically separate, they are undetachably intertwined. In other words, all of them should be achieved together.This discussion not only represents the inherent distinction and independence of this type of system compared to other systems but it can also provide a guideline for government officials and contribute to the development and progress paradigms for a religious government.

The most common strategy to prevent cybercrime in Iran is to refine content. However, filtering is not consistent with criminological knowledge approaches and contradicts the natural rights of citizens, including the right to liberty, equality and the right to security. The findings of this research show that the high use of filtering results in "civil disobedience," "society laziness in protecting morality," "generalisation of crime," and "juvenile delinquency and victimisation". The findings of this research show that the high use of filtering results in "civil disobedience," "society laziness in protecting morality," "generalisation of crime," and "juvenile delinquency and victimisation". There are already some levels of these unfavourable outcomes in Iran's cyberspace. The conclusion and theory of this article is that sustainable prevention of crime in cyberspace is realised when crime prevention is planned in a "right-wing paradigm" through "community measures" and with respect for individual rights and freedoms. Therefore, it is suggested that by moderating the policy of filtering in the current way, a participatory prevention pattern is implemented so that citizens of cyberspace follow the issue of prevention as a right (the right to cultural participation).