نشریه فقه اهل بیت
پیاپی 91 (پاییز 1396)

The unlawfulness of songs is undoubted in jurisprudence and the major argument for its unlawfulness are four groups of hadiths. However, none of these hadiths denote the absolute unlawfulness of songs. Most of them are not absolute and those which appear to be absolute such as the hadiths mentioned in the interpretation of “qawl al-zur”, “lahw al-hadith” and “lagw” (vain talk) as well as the sahih hadith of Ali b. Ja’far denote, based on internal and external evidence, a specific kind of songs which contain the falsehood and diversion which drives the individual out of the path of God.

It is an important jurisprudential issue to find out the meaning of “lahw” (diversion) and its ruling and no deep research has been conducted about the meaning of this term so far. Although this term has been extensively applied in religious and jurisprudential texts, it has been treated as if its meaning has been completely clear. It was under-researched until 9th/15th century when, for the first time, jurists gradually started to research about its meaning. Among the jurisprudential discussion of 13th/19th and 14th/20th century, we find scattered researches in this respect. However, it still seems necessary to study the development of the thoughts of jurists about this concept. An extensive research on the literal meaning of this term and its usages in Islamic texts brings us to the conclusion that the ruling of unlawfulness for lahw is not a general/absolute ruling.

That how zakat becomes obligatory for the property is disputed by the jurists and various opinions have been proposed in this respect for which there are many theoretical and practical benefits. The most important aspect of the difference of opinion among the jurists arises from this question: is zakat a liability on the individual as other debts or not? Or it is applied to the property itself? If it is applied to the property, is it as a right or possession? What kind of right or possession is that? Is the possession a kind of partnership? If yes, what kind of partnership? And if it is a right, what type of right is it?

This article aims to answer the most common doubts cast over the jurisprudential-quranic punishment of stoning. Putting jurisprudential arguments and tens of reliable hadiths about stoning aside, the author tries to investigate the doubts cast over the punishment of stoning and its rejection misusing the Qur’an. Lack of quranic evidence, conflict between the rule of stoning with Quran nur:2, conflict with Quran 4:15,25, abrogation of the quranic text by khabarwahid and manipulating the meaning of stoning are among the most prominent jurisprudential questions about stoning which are proposed through the Qur’an.

During hajj, Muslims performing hajj must stay in ‘Arafat on Dhu l-Hijja 9. But what if the crescent of Dhu l-Hijja moon has not been verified by Shiites or there is a doubt about it or they are certain that it has not risen. Is it enough to stay in ‘Arafat alongside the Sunni Muslims? Numerous reasons have been provided for the sufficiency of staying in ‘Arafat alongside the Sunni Muslims. The most important and the strongest reason is the conduct of the infallible Imams (‘a) where in many cases they stayed in ‘Arafat alongside Sunni Muslims in spite of the differences of opinion about the crescent. Having clarified the conduct of the infallible Imams (‘a) in ‘Arafat alongside Sunni Muslims and some evidences in its support, this article answers the criticisms about it. Finally, this conduct and its scope has been investigated in case the person has certainty in having the opposite opinion and compared to other duties in hajj.

Thanks to the developments in medicine, transplantation of organs has become possible through which people survive. Therefore, organ transplantation is among the necessary issues which have entailed many discussions including legal and jurisprudential considerations. This article aims to explain the jurisprudential ruling of organ transplantation. First, legal stages have been covered and then opinions of jurists about permissibility or impermissibility of removing an organ of a living human for transplantation have been mentioned. Later, the arguments by those jurists who forbid the removal of organs were analyzed and it was concluded that we should differentiate between a case where main organs on which the survival of the person depends are to be removed and the case where other organs on which the survival of the person does not depend are to be removed. In the first case it is unlawful and in the second case it is not unlawful because it is not included in any of the categories of unlawfulness.

Survival of the murderer after Qisas has different cases some of which have been mentioned in jurisprudence and law. Other cases can be inferred from jurisprudential principles and laws of qisas or special texts. In all these cases, blood-claimer can execute the verdict once again to obtain his/her/their right. However, whether blood-claimer is liable for the damages caused for the convict in the first time of qisas and to determine the cases of liability for qisas or blood money in different cases of the issue, have different rulings which are covered in this article explaining the rulings which are not mentioned in jurisprudence nor in law. The author also proposes a new opinion in the criterion of liability to qisas or blood money for the damages inflicted upon the convict and finally recommends to adjust article no.438 of the Islamic Penal Code.