نشریه قرآن، فقه و حقوق اسلامی
پیاپی 7 (پاییز و زمستان 1396)

“Urgency” means to face danger or obstacles and it plays a crucial role in removing hardships and personal and social difficulties. Therefore, a number of the verses of the holy Quran are devoted to the subject of urgency including chapters 2: 173; 5: 3; 6: 119, etc. that absolutely emphasize the lawfulness of eating unlawful foods in emergent situations. Although the above-mentioned verses appear only to give permission to eat unlawful foods, they are not absolutely devoted to eating unlawful foods and they can be relied on, in the case when all the requirements are met, to give judgment generally on the lawfulness of any unlawful thing and any impediment in the urgent situations. On the other hand, torture is unlawful and forbidden according to some verses including the chapters 85: 10; 33: 58, and a variety of Islamic traditions. Is it possible to give a judgment on the lawfulness of torture in emergent cases relying on the general statements of the verses and evidences about urgency? The present article criticizes and reviews the viewpoints on this matter. Finally, it can be said that theoretically, the general statements on urgency can also be applied to the subject of torture and the arguments alone for rejecting this generality like human dignity, freedom, etc. are not sufficient to limit the generality of the verses. In addition, it seems that practically all the requirements for giving permission of torture are not met and it is not practically possible to give a judgment on the lawfulness of torture due to emergency.

In the view of the followers of the school of Ahl al-Bayt (the Household of Prophet Mohammad(PBUH)) drinking wine was originally unlawful and the divine Legislator gradually made it public. However, in the view of the other Islamic sects, drinking wine was gradually made unlawful and the divine Legislator first prepared the people for that and then announced its prohibition in the Sura al-Ma,ida. The important point of the verses 219 of the Sura al-Baqara and 43 of the Sura al-Nisa is their causes of revelation. Based on the Shi'a perspective, a person like 'Ali ibn Abitalib(AS) who was preferentially trained and educated by the Holy Prophet Mohammad(PBUH) was refusing, from the very beginning, to drink wine. But according to a tradition quoted in the exegetical sources of the Sunnis, the lord of the pious, 'Ali(AS) drank wine, on the occasion of the cause of revelation of the Sura al-Nisa that forbids the believers from performing prayer while they are drunk. Allamah Ma'rifat has strongly criticized and rejected this latter tradition. Investigating the report and the sanad of the tradition, reviewing the conflicting traditions, as well as several wellestablished evidences of the Quran and the validity agreed upon in all Islamic sects or approved by the followers of the school of Ahl al-Bayt, he rejects this claim. The present article approves the view of Allamah Ma'rifat and strengthens the aforementioned evidences.

There has been a wide discussion among Muslim scholars on the subject of polygamy or the multiplicity of wives in the Quran and different views have been proposed in this regard. A group of scholars has supported polygamy and considered it necessary for some reasons. They believe that sometimes a man is urged to marry another woman in order to keep away from sin and corruption. On the other side, polygamy provides the opportunity for those women who have not married yet because of the death of their husband or divorce. In contrast, another group has criticized it. Polygamy, in their belief, may threaten the rights of the first wife. There is also the possibility that the wives oppose each other that makes some problems and challenges for them. In addition, polygamy may threaten the family preservation; since, generally, the entrance of the second wife into the life of the man brings about many tensions in the family relationship that disadvantages of which may also affect the children. Another group, taking into consideration the advantages and disadvantages of polygamy, has attempted to manage their disadvantages and to propose solution for that. Therefore, we see the formation of three different approaches to this problem. The present article reviews and evaluates the different approaches to polygamy in the form of three parts of “prescription”, “prohibition,” and “limitation”.

The wrongdoing elimination necessity rule that entails unlawfulness of setting the scene for committing wrong acts by others and the necessity of preventing from wrongdoing by them is among the rules that can make clear the framework of Islamic criminal policy against the crime and corruption. It is different from the rules of unlawfulness of assisting sin and promotion of good and prevention of evil from different aspects. While a similar position has not been taken toward this rule and its limits by Islamic scholars, most of them, relying on Veghaya verse, have emphasized the validity of circulation of rule in the realm of family. The present writing, while delineating the rule, aims at studying its reflection in jurisprudential literature, and analyzing its position in family area through analyzing Veghaya verse in the view of Islamic exegetes and jurisprudents.

The large number of Islamic traditions about testimony and the lack of wide usage of formal document at the time of legislation due to the general illiteracy of the people at that time led to the fallacy that testimony has priority over formal document in Islamic legal system. The output of this fallacy can be seen within the various theories of Guardian Council and the jurisprudential consultation assembly of the Council that implicitly approved the priority of testimony over document through nullification of some of the articles of civil code and the Document and Real Estate Registration Law. The major reason for rejecting the authenticity of a formal document is the basis for devotional and legal making for the validity of a formal document. Accordingly, only those ways and instruments can be regarded as evidences in substantiation of claim that are considered valid and authentic by the clear verbal text of the legislator. Therefore, the way of finding the truth based on external evidences cannot be regarded as the basis for its validity. Those who hold this view believe that no legal text has been adduced on the authenticity of the document and finding truth based on external evidences cannot be considered as the basis for the validity of the document unless it is relied upon a legal clear text. The present article aims to prove that, given that devotional and legal making is the basis for the validity of the evidences in substantiation of claim, not only the legal making of the validity of document has occurred within the verse 282 of the Sura al-Baqara, but also the emphases and exaggerations made in this verse indicate the supremacy of document over other evidences in substantiation of claim.

One of the doubts cast about Islam is its material and political utilitarianism of religious rules according to which the religious rules of Islam is based on the material and political interests. The verse 70 of the Sura al-Yusuf is relied upon in this respect. It is stated that Hazrat Yusuf(AS) has sacrificed the legal and ethical rules for his material and political interests and accused his brothers of theft. The present article, reviewing the exegeses of the verse, as well as the jurisprudential and Quranic bases of expediency as the most important element of Shi'a political jurisprudence, tries to answer these questions. The results show that expediency or interest in the above-mentioned verse not only is based on political and material interests, but also it is a criterion-oriented matter, a necessity of divine justice and wisdom, that preserves ethical principles, legal rules, and rational criteria in the line with the divine end. Hazrat Yusuf(AS)’s attribution of theft to his brothers also due to turiya and it is indicative of their actual characteristic, but not accusation.