In today's world, described as a global village, countries inevitably need to expand their interactions, collaborations, and international relations with each other. No country can claim to be self-sufficient, as thriving in the new global order is virtually impossible without transnational ties. States must regulate their relations with the rest of the world; Islamic states, additionally, must consider Sharia frameworks and norms when forming their international interactions. The term "governing Rules of international relations" means that Muslims must adjust their relations with non-Muslim states in conformity to these guidelines. Given the gap in research, the present study employs a descriptive-analytical approach and problem-oriented perspective to explore the written Islamic heritage. The findings indicate that according to Sharia teachings and the opinions of Islamic jurists, four fundamental principles can be considered as the foundations of Islamic international relations: 1) The Rule of Dignity (Karāmah), 2) the Rule against Defamation of Religion, 3) Rule of Denying Means (Nafy al-Sabīl), and 4) Rule of No Harm (Lā Darar) with the Rule of Obligation (al-Iltizām) also being a subset and function of this Rule.

Dear Editor, While front-line healthcare workers (HCWs) combatting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have commanded much respect and praise, 1 they have been persecuted in Japan – a collective society where individual reputation and work ethic are traditionally viewed as important as one’ s life. HCWs, who were exposed to higher risk of infection due to lack of sufficient personal protective equipment and mentally exhausted in daily work, have another epidemic to fight: Defamation. They have been targeted for discrimination and abuse in off-duty hours and stigmatized as “ germs” in public spaces with many suffering social sanctions in forms of social exclusion and even bullying. ..

Purpose: To determine the status of Rule similarity (isoRule vs. anisoRule) and symmetry pattern (direct versus mirror) in refractive surgery candidates Methods: This population-based study was conducted on the available data of 2015-2016. The clinical records containing complete eye examinations including the measurement of visual acuity, objective and subjective refraction, biomicroscopy, and topographic images were evaluated. Clinical and demographic data including the amount of refractive error (diopter and cylinder) and astigmatism axis were extracted from the patients’ records. In this study, refraction was recorded as a negative cylinder value, and spherical values of more than 0. 5 D for myopia and hyperopia and astigmatism less than 1 D were considered as the exclusion criteria. Results: After applying the exclusion criteria, the data of 2196 astigmatic patients were analyzed. In the study population, 95. 9% of the patients had isoRule and 4. 1% had anisoRule astigmatism. The prevalence of isoRule and anisoRule astigmatism was similar in terms of gender (p=0. 204) and age (0. 244). An increase in the amount of astigmatism was associated with an increase in the prevalence of isoRule and a decrease in the prevalence of anisoRule astigmatism (p=0. 012). The prevalence of WW, AA, and OO was 75. 8%, 19%, and 1. 1% and the prevalence of WA, WO, and AO was 0. 6%, 2. 5%, and 1%, respectively. As for the symmetry of astigmatism axes, the median difference in the axis of astigmatism between the fellow eyes was 5˚ in mirror symmetry and 10˚ in direct symmetry. According to the results, ageing was associated with an increase in the axis difference between the fellow eyes in both direct (p=0. 023) and mirror (p<0. 001) symmetry, while an increase in the amount of astigmatism increased the axis difference between the of fellow eyes in direct (p=0. 002) and mirror (p<0. 001) symmetry. Conclusion: IsoRule astigmatism is a very common pattern in refractive surgery candidates and anisoRule astigmatism is a rare condition. Symmetry was also common in this study and there was a higher tendency towards mirror symmetry compared to direct symmetry. Patients with WW astigmatism had the highest symmetry among patients.

"Treat others the way you love they behave you". This simple sentence is one of the oldest principles accepted in most human cultures. Antiquity and simplicity, give a significant role to this sentence so it has gained a reputation: "Golden Rule" in ethics. Now the question is: "Does the golden Rule in medical ethics be inferred from religious teachings?" In this article we will first define the Golden Rule and its organs (including conscience, wisdom, justice, imagination and strong will). Then we Analyze Islamic texts and the effect of Golden Rule on modern medical ethics.

One of the most frequent Rules in various areas of demonstrative jurisprudence of Two Major Sects of Islam Religion is a Rule that is known among Shīʿa as “tolerance in the evidence of traditions” (Arabic: التسامح فی أدلّة السنن) and in Sunnī as “latitudinarianism in documents” (Arabic: التساهل فی أسانید). Believers in the general application of this Rule have based it for reasons such as consensus (Arabic: إجماع), tradition famous through practice (Arabic: الشهرة العملیّة), and rational judgement (intellectual judgement) and a group of aḥādīth (Arabic: أحادیث, plural form for ḥadīth, literally “talk” or “discourse”) called “Akhbar-e- Man Balagh” (Arabic: أخبار من بلغ). The understanding of the aforementioned narrations and the extent of application of this Rule has caused a conflict of opinions among scholars. The narrations containing the excellences of suras of the Holy Book of Quran is one of the fields of application of the Rule of tolerance. The present research has explained the types of exposure to this group of narrations based on the Rule of tolerance by using descriptive-exploratory method and using library sources and seeks to find a suitable approach about narrations of the excellences of suras (chapters) of the Holy Book of Quran. The interaction with these narrations is organized based on a special reading of the Rule of tolerance in the selected approach, which is based on a rational interpretation of the contents of Man-Balagh (Arabic: من بلغ)’s narrations and is compatible with the indications of some verses and traditions. The use of weak narrations containing the excellences of suras (chapters) will be permissible based on this approach considering three conditions and without any certainty of attributing these narrations to Sharʿ (Islamic Rules).

Though, in the International Law, fraud against law has been spoken of, fraud against law occurs in the scope of domestic law as well. Fraud against law in the domestic law is employment of correct and legal means to attain illegal goals and consequences. Theory of orientation, theory of abuse of rights and theory of good will are legal foundations of [the theory of] fraud against law. Sanctions for frauds against law are different in domestic and international law. In the domestic law, he who commits fraud wants to harm others; thus, a sanction protecting the rights of the victim will be sufficient and fraud against law, if some conditions are observed, will make the transaction null and void. The present writing tries to explain the Rule of preventing fraud against law in domestic law and its sanction, and criticizes arguments posed by the opponents of the above Rule. Finally, the present writing analyzes the legal status of contracts concluded on the basis of fraud against law.

Traditionally, Defamation against individuals has been criminalized in order to protect the value of reputation and dignity. Although criminal protection shows the great importance of the values, sometimes they conflict with the right to freedom of expression and information; The protection of both mentioned rights requires that a legal balancing between them so that the protection of one right does not impose illegitimate legal restrictions on the other right. For this reason, some countries have adopted the decriminalization approach and have replaced punishment with civil responsibility. It seems that the middle approach is more desirable, based on which, without removing criminal protection and intervention in general, the minimum legal restrictions are imposed on the right to freedom of expression, which carries many and more public interests; So that especially the newspapers and media, for fulfilling their professional mission and duties, do not feel the pressure of criminal prosecution and conviction. The civil approach reduces this concern to a great extent.

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.

With the development of communication and media tools, Defamation cases have transcended national borders, so the international elements involved in such cases can be very numerous. Therefore, the legal systems should provide choice of law Rules for the courts that have an appropriate effect. This research will investigate that what kind of Rules are used in the legal systems of England, the European Union and Iran to determine applicable law. Are these Rules compliant with the conditions of Defamation claims? In the studied legal systems, no special Rule has been designed for Defamation. In the European Union, due to the exception of Defamation from the general Rules of conflict of laws, national Rules are applied. In Iranian law, only the general Rule of lex fori is applicable, but in English law, according to common law, Defamation must be held liable by both the lex fori and the lex loci delicti. This research will demonstrate that the Rules provided in these legal systems are ineffective and have to conform to Defamation lawsuits.