فصلنامه پژوهش های فقه و حقوق اسلامی
سال شانزدهم شماره 4 (پیاپی 61، پاییز 1399)

Looking at the historical course of the ruling form, we come to the conclusion that this profession has been paid more attention in religious matters such as idolatry than in Islamic jurisprudence. Painting and sculpture need to be re-read in the present age. Regarding the sculpture and painting of lifeless images, there is no difference between the jurists in the permission to create and maintain them; however, some jurists consider it haram to take pictures and images of living beings, as well as the existing sculpture and statue of living beings.What is important is to discuss  the reasons forthis view. After discussing the arguments of those who believe in sanctity, it became clear that there is no explicit verse in the Holy Quran about sanctity, and both the reasons for consensus and the news are incomplete, because in short, the mentioned consensus is evidence-based and unreliable. Citation is either flawed in terms of document or in terms of signification.

The phenomenon of money laundering has become one of the problems of the global economy in the present age. Therefore, countries and international forums seriously intend to deal with this phenomenon and its destructive effects and consequences. The Islamic Republic of Iran, like other countries, passed the Anti-Money Laundering Law in twelve articles to combat money laundering. In addition to the problems and destructive effects that this phenomenon has on the economies of countries, including the Islamic Republic of Iran, the existence of Article 1 of the Anti-Money Laundering Law has caused many problems, including the failure to open cases and vote. Accordingly, the present study, relying on traditional arguments of the rule of Amare Yad and government jurisprudence, examines its effect on the crime of money laundering and the rightness or wrongness of removing it from the law, and then concludes that the removal of Amare Yad on the crime of money laundering is against the rules and regulations of Sharia and law.

Confiscation is one of the institutes enacted by the legislator to protect the right of winning party and/or the claimant and ensure individuals' right. It is based on protecting individuals' right. However, carrying out these regulations can weaken the social and economic aspects of the society. But today, laws should be comprehensive and consider group rights in addition to individuals' right. In this way, existential principles which are the philosophy of enacting the current regulations are criticized in addition to presenting a new definition for confiscation and investigating social and economic model-setting principles; and by presenting a new theory for confiscation, we move toward socializing law and protecting individuals' rights and jurisprudence and legal principles of insuring confiscated properties are studied based on development of the wise, rule of prohibition of detriment, the inclusion of generalities and applications of evidence.

Contradictory possession means the non-fulfillment of the condition stated in the contract. According to the terms of the contract, the violation of the condition can be examined in three cases of violation of the condition of the adjective, verb and result. Considering that the parties to the contract have considered a specific purpose and motivation for inserting the condition in the contract, without a doubt their relationship is effective and creates legal conditions for constitutionalism. The jurists disagree on the freedom of contract and on freedom of condition, along with contracts, but in this case they agree that whenever a contract is concluded with full pillars and conditions, it will have binding power. This study, by descriptively examining the views of Imami and Sunni jurists and analyzing its reasons, has considered the legal act (contract or iqa ') that has been done against the condition to be correct, but the constitutional case can take two steps against violating the condition: First, it can be contractual. To terminate the condition in which the condition is stated and, secondly, to request compensation in case of conditional violation against the damage caused to him. Of course, in some cases, such as marriage, etc., this general rule must be deviated, as in some cases, the legislature has deviated

In ordinary life, according to some jurisprudential views, the idea arose for Muslims that in social life, the practice of family life is practically based on the absolute domination of the husband over the wife. On the other hand, based on the re-examination of jurisprudential documents and the principles of the relationship between husband and wife, and by accepting private property; the independence of each spouse is preferable to each other in terms of life, property and honor in married life. Therefore, the domination of the husband is to the extent of the right of marriage; that is, obedience and good companionship. On the other hand, the wife dominates the husband in terms of receiving dowry and alimony, which is a reciprocal and just domination, thus proving the equality of the husband and wife. With this description, the two notions of husband domination and wife privacy are in conflict. What is the solution? Is it possible to give privacy to a woman, despite the jurisprudential arguments for the husband to dominate the wife? Since the conflict has a primitive aspect, it can be resolved through customary collecting and through Hukoma (supremacy). According to the principle of non-guardianship every human being has independence in life, property, honor, the privacy of the wife rules and limits it.

Power structure in the most Iranian families has evolved from authoritarian (patriarchal) to semi-democratic. This transformation has affected all aspects of the family, especially its legal dimension, in terms of the rights of members. One of the most important rights under influence of evolution is husband's rights. Therefore, in this research, we tried to examine the effect of the transformation on husband's rights, and we concluded that since the requirements of time and place necessitate the necessity of adapting laws with developments, therefore the legislator appropriate to the evolution of the power structure in the family has introduced new laws or amended former laws regarding the right of presidency, the right of divorce and the right of polygamy. However, there are still  some affairs related to these rights that have changed, but have not attracted the attention by the legislator and, as a result, have created legal gaps; therefore, changes to previous laws or the establishment of new laws are recommended by using the legal capacity of them.

Demonstration of lawful verbs is a credit and affair that is directly related to the thoughts, beliefs and morals of the people in any society whose crime, punishment or even the norm of what they know, depends on society. Of course, the Iranian legislator considers this behavior to be contrary to the ethical principles of the society and considers the criterion of criminalizing this behavior to be a victim of public humiliation which is in fact a disturbance of the social order of society.And, without regard to non-criminal acts, it deals with the guarantee of coercive punishment.The criminal actions is against lawful act pretending to prioritize and spend chastising capabilities and immoral act of pretending to be lawful, because necessity is not criminalized in the field of criminal law.It can be through culture and non-criminal actions and desired behavior is limited. And interest to income from the criminalization of the society will be greater than the negative effects. The legislature of the criminalization of this behavior turned from non-criminal acts, without violent criminal acts. It can be determined by culture and education of anytraining programs.

In Article 873 Civil Law the issue of inheritance has been raised in relation to persons who inherit from each other but whose time of death is unknown and the precedence of death of one of them is not known. The article mentions two exceptions and excludes others who are subject to the above situation from inheritance; the first exception is related to the case where their death is the result of drowning and the second exception is in case of death due to destruction. The above exceptions, which are included at the beginning of the article, are adapted from Imami jurisprudence. The apparent conflict at the beginning and below of the above article has affected the judicial opinions as well as the opinions of legal scholars. In this article, by examining the basics of the two rulings on non-inheritance and inheritance in the exceptions provided in this article, as well as the existing views on its limited or extensive interpretation, the possibility of inheritance in similar incidents, which is more common, has been investigated. And finally, by observing the framework of Article 873 Civil Law and also the requirements of the time and in order to solve social problems and in terms of custom, we considered the possibility of expanding the examples within the scope of the concept of destruction.

Sexual intercourse is generally not the means of killing other people. Infection of sexual partner to STD as well as force in penetration, however, may result in death.  In the first case, the person 's awareness of his own infection, methods of disease transmission and its lethality are supposed as conditions of murder and in the assumption of not being aware of each of these components as well as taking measures to prevent transmission, Dia will be fixed for partner or his/her sanguinity relations. If the death results due to force in sexual penetration, most of the jurists are believe in payment of Dia by partner, although some are against this view on the basis of the Rule “No Liability for Authorized Act “. In addition, some jurists fix Dia only where there is a dispute between the spouses. Provided the dispute affirmed, it seems that claimant can ask for Qasameh. Where there is no dispute between spouses, the husband shall not be responsible. In Iran’s criminal law, there is no specific article in this respect, but it is inferred from different legal titles.