پژوهش نامه فرهنگ و رسانه (نامه فرهنگ و ارتباطات)
پیاپی 1 (پاییز و زمستان 1395)

The expression of “Good Deed” is a known legal expression utilizing generally in the realm of civil law and procedure; For instance, in the article 975 of civil law or article 6 of civil procedure, and etc. however, there is a conflict in defining this expression among lawyers, particularly civil ones; moreover, various definitions are observable, which originate from different opinions of these elites that are about the relation of this institution with public policy, roots of good deed, and so on .
In criminal law and statutes of Islamic Republic of Iran, the expression of good deed was not utilized, and merely the phrase of “The Crimes against Decency and Public Morals” was posed in the title of the eighteenth section of the fifth chapter of Islamic Penal Code .
The question is why in spite of distinguishable categories in different crimes toward economy, politic, culture, and etc. that put them under crimes against economic security, political security, cultural security, and etc. the same circumstance cannot be applied to crimes against morals? Is not it feasible to make and use the expression of “Moral Security” along with the mentioned titles? It sounds it is possible and essential to define and spread “Moral Security”, and the proposed definition is: “feeling convenient in regard with any behavior against moral values of society like decency and dignity ”.

The responsibility of international community in protecting human fundamental rights is one of the serious issues of international law. On the basis of this theory, which was considered as “humanitarian interference” and today is called “responsibility to protect”, if a government suppress its nation and by egregious infringing of their fundamental rights commits organized crimes like massacre, the international community has responsibility to protect that nation .
This context is not in contrast with Islamic teaches at all and Islam, by emphasizing on human dignity and preparing a comprehensive program for guidance and mundane and unworldly happiness of human, has made the issue of protecting the oppressed a vital subject without considering their various beliefs and it has not only utilized its protection from poor people against cruelty but also spread it to the border of defending of human’s nature and his reasonable life. Therefore, the theory of responsibility to protect is comparable with some examples of “Islamic Jihad”. The philosophy of Jihad in Islam is not an armed war or territorial development or colonizing, but it is any attempt to develop holy godly aims and fight to spread Islamic equality and remove polytheism and idolatry, and also protect eternity of Islamic community or some Muslims and defend their lordship.

The particular cultural, historical, religious, and authentic features of Lebanon have made the administrative structure of this country so complicated. In a way that alongside with a collective will in order for peaceful coexistence and maintenance of unity, there is nothing to protect the integrity of this country but legal structure and lawful causes through a particular system. Meanwhile, considering the multi-religion situation of this country and highlighted role of religious tendencies, the lawful trial model based on making the special court in Islamic law has structurally exhibited one of the most appropriate existing models among Islamic countries. Although there is the comprehensive Lawful Jurisdiction Act, the courts of canon law of Muslims including Sunnis courts and Shiite courts (Ja’afar ī courts) have created a particular trial system in the middle of the judicial system of this country besides lay courts which has taken its special face in administrative structure, qualification field, and procedure. Surveying lawful trial model and the dominant legal regime on Lebanon’s Islamic courts is the major subject of this article.

Since the development of the just war theory in Christianity and the Islamic idea of jihad, the use of force in order to prevent mass cruelty, injustice therein protect oppressed peoples were regarded as legitimate. The humanitarian intervention as a new notion replaced traditional concept of just war probably due to the principle of prohibition of the use of force. Nowadays, the rejection of aggressive intervention is something that was agreed unanimously upon it.
For deontologists, including Motahari and Rawls, what makes a choice right is its conformity with a moral norm or “the Right” in contrast to consequentialist ones that “the Good” is said to have priority over “the Right”. Such norms are to be simply obeyed by each moral agent. Indeed, such source of human actions is what plausibly connects actions to the agency that is of moral concern on the agent-centered version of deontology. In contrary, in contractarian deontological theories the morally wrong acts are those acts that would be forbidden by principles that people in a suitably described social contract would accept. We can different between Rawls and Motahari’s viewpoints in light of two aforementioned versions of deontological theories.

Enjoining goodness and forbidding evil, a law arisen from human nature and his destiny, proves the necessity of intellect in human society. Article VIII of the constitution law considers invitation to goodness as a “Common responsibility”; hence in the Islamic community we must see its implementation as a legal obligation originated from Islamic teachings and precepts. This article referring it to other laws for determining its conditions, restrictions, and characterizations has distinguished an important strategy to resolve the ambiguities in the execution path. Accordingly, of the most important things that the law should be determined for is determining instances of enjoining goodness and forbidding evil, organizing and functioning institutions, executives, and the mode of action. This study seeks to answer the question what kind of status, limitation, and authority “enjoining goodness and forbidding evil” has in the legal system and particularly in the "patronage from enjoining goodness and forbidding evil code". Therefore, with descriptive-analytic method, explaining the legal status and authority in the Islamic Republic of Iran, we criticize the terms of "enjoining goodness and forbidding evil code", including open proceeding and avoidance of invasion to privacy, avoiding of practical measure to enjoiner and forbidder, not resorting to criminal acts, and finally teaching and learning.

Equality is social justice and putting everything is in place. The concept of criminal justice is respect equitable, truth and impartiality in judicial affairs and said judgment. The foundation of any society is based on respect for law and institutionalize justice. Continuity and stability of a system with the fairness of the judicial system it is possible. In fact, one of the indicators of good governance, judicial justice. The index is based on aspects such as 1- transparency in criminal justice, honesty, independence, rule of law and accountability, flexibility to change is when people have. In the modern world one of the ideas used in conjunction with social and legal institutions, judicial and governmental policies Imam Ali. In fact, Imam Ali, a symbol of rationality, democracy and the modern era is religious democracy and justice that is the source of its knowledge Nahjolbalagha. Throughout this wisdom, correct thinking, the administration of justice, and respect for social rights and is judged rightly. Judiciary agents of the judgment on the basis of color, race, gender, social status, fake witnesses, bribes, personal issues, hatred and division, and so banned individual, his knowledge of the type of social issue and type of arguments, standards, principles and justice strategy, technology, justice, meritocracy, scientific expertise, moral authority and courage to attribute social and Islam become a rule. Accordingly, in continuing legal standards governing research of Imam Ali (AS) have been analyzed.