نشریه قرآن، فقه و حقوق اسلامی
پیاپی 9 (پاییز و زمستان 1397)

Many deep concepts in Islamic thought, such as retribution (Qisas), have been applied within a limited framework. A careful contemplation on the verses of retribution and its manifestations in Shi'a jurisprudence begs the question of whether the concept of retribution extends beyond what we see today. This question led us to research the Qur'anic verses and to examine the flow of this concept in the Words of Ahl ol-Bayt (AS) and jurisprudence. Re-analyzing the generalities of the retribution debate, examining the traditions in various ethical and jurisprudential teachings, and the analysis of the earlier great scholars opened new avenues in this regard. Paying attention to the rational trends to observe the proportionality between offender and his behavior and status emphasizes the correctness of the new understandings. The final achievement of this study is to pay attention to retribution as an important ethical rule in the field of social relations. This ethical rule is accepted also in the field of international behavior and in some cases it forms the basis on international law. Retribution is to be regarded as a rule in social ethics within which the roots of this legal rule are to be found; a rule without which privacy is not protected and harmful behaviors are not controlled. Another achievement of the present study is to come up with a comprehensive rule of penal law. This rule deals not only with crimes against individuals but also with retribution as an approach to determining the type and extent of arbitrary punishments. This area, without specifying any specific criteria, has been assigned to the Ruler which creates disorder and chaos.

Human dignity has been widely considered both in religious thought and in international documents, and efforts have been made to recognize many legal effects, particularly in the field of basic human rights. This article seeks to answer this important question as to what is the basis for dignity in the Qur'anic approach and whether the human can claim his basic rights such as equality and freedom based on it. International human rights documents have underscored dignity as the basis of human rights, however it do not dwell on the basis and the meaning of dignity which require serious contemplations. The findings of the paper show that human dignity in the Qur'an is due to his "reason and nature" and God honored man by the virtue of these two blessings. In such a case, the necessity of linking human rights with dignity is to make a link between the rights and the reason and nature, while no one among the human rights advocates has bound himself to it. On the other hand, assuming that human dignity has legal effects, the fundamental difference is the relation between human and dignity in a non-religious approach with the relation between humanity and dignity in the religious approach which separates the paths of these two.

Justice and oppression in the Qur'an can be discussed from two general and partial aspects. Two rules of justice and rejecting the oppression can be referred to from general aspect. The legal substantiation of any rule that is customarily regarded as fair constitutes the content of the rule of justice, and the rejection of any rule that is customarily regarded as unfair, although being proved based on a valid but not a definitive document, constitutes the content of the rule of rejecting the oppression; such that the original rule and its attribution to the divine law is considered to be wrong. The present article, after presenting the claim for substantiation of the two rules based on the Qur'an, the claim is criticized and rejected. The article has traversed a new path both to complete the claim and the possibility of referring to further verses and its detailed criticism. This path is opened through giving a clear explanation of the matter which avoids any confused or deviated discussion. Next, it is established through having a general look at the verses on oppression and justice and their categorization in order to reach the destination; that is claiming and next criticizing it within the two axes of the jurisprudential rules of justice and rejection of oppression.

Genetic engineering and transgenic products, in spite of their benefits and interests, have created some challenges for the environment, biodiversity, and the health of the humans, animals, and plants that have their own pros and cons. The present research first, explains, analyzes, and criticizes the main reasons of unlawfulness of transgenic products including the unlawfulness of changing the creation, causing damage to the biodiversity, no-harm rule, etc. ... Next, it reviews the evidences of the lawfulness of this technology such as the permissibility rule (Ibaha), the evidences of subservience (Taskhir), dominance rule (Taslit), etc. ... In the view of the authors, the technology of the genetic engineering is considered as a common means and the products produced with the aid of this technology have both lawful and unlawful applications. In the case of lawful application, it is lawful, and if it is proved that it is supposed to be used in a wrong way it is unlawful; in another word, the lawfulness or unlawfulness of this technology is latent in the way it is used and the evidences for its unlawfulness do not substantiate that it is wrong by nature, rather since this technology, if it is used legally and lawfully, can have useful results and consequences, it is lawful. The targeted use of this technology with observing all safety and legal aspects will result in the qualitative and quantitative increase of the products and a considerable productivity. However, if it is used unlawfully it will be subjected to the rule of unlawfulness.

According to some views, a great part of the jurisprudential capacity of the verses of the Holy Qur'an still remains potential and in the case of referring and changing the view to the Qur'an the Qur'anic documents of the divine rules and jurisprudential principles can be increased. The present research, using a comparative-analytical method, first tries to count the number of verses which have been referred to. Next, it tries to identify the other verses that are similar in word, content, and rule to the verses referred to. Meanwhile, having a comprehensive look, it is aimed at identifying the verses that can be used as jurisprudential documents. The results of the study show that pertaining to nine jurisprudential rules in different books, totally 18 verses have been referred to by the jurisprudents. 34 new verses similar to those verses and almost in the same evidential level have been identified and presented. In addition, there has been a comprehensive look throughout the nine rules and adding a dozen of verses it could create a reliable document for every one of the rules. These results which have been achieved within the limits of nine rules clearly show that the documents of jurisprudential rules are capable of expansion and that the number of the verses of the Holy Qur'an with jurisprudential capacity exceeds beyond the number which has been identifies until now.

The Holy Qur'an and the reported religious traditions from Infallible Imams is full of words that emphasize and encourage the people to observe the religious obligation of the Calling the people to the goods and preventing the people from evils. Some conditions have been stipulated for the necessity of this ruling in the words of the jurisprudents. One of them which is a matter of controversy is that whether the possibility of effect is a conditional or unconditional clause. Some of the jurisprudents believe that it is absolutely evil, some others believe that it is conditional at the verbal and practical stage. A group of them holds that it is unconditional. The present research, analyzing the Holy verses of the Qur'an and considering the generalities of the verses on the one hand and the weakness of the isnad and inadequate evidences for the validity of the above-mentioned condition on the other hand and after evaluating other evidences concludes that it must be fulfilled even if it doesn’t effect. Therefore, the third view is approved and even considering the extent of the impact, whether overall or partial, it becomes obvious that the ruling of the conditionality of the possibility of effect is a baseless and unreasonable verdict and the dispute over this matter will be fruitless and impractical.