نشریه قرآن، فقه و حقوق اسلامی
پیاپی 11 (پاییز و زمستان 1398)

Under the verse 33 of the surah Al-Isra` there contains the kingdom, the authority, and the possibility of retaliation for the avenger of the blood of the person killed by oppression. There are four elements for every right: “the owner of the right”, “belonging of the right”, “reason for the right”, and “the person whom the right is against”. If the possibility of retaliation is a right - but not a ruling -, then these four elements of the right of retaliation can be found and examined in the verse. The article found some results including: the retaliation is not only a ruling but also a right; retaliation is the man’s right, retaliation is not the right of the person killed and the guardian of the avenger of blood; the right can be waived; the permission of retaliation without guaranteeing the debts of the killed person; retaliation for all the parties to the murder is not the excess in slaying provided that the difference (fazil) of blood money for retaliation is paid; overlapping of the retaliation for the organ of the body and with the life of the man; and the unlawfulness of uncommon retaliations.

One of the titles that needs explanation considering the modern developments is “tanfir or making the people hate and escape religion”. According to the verses of the Holy Quran, creation of human as the main addressee of the religion is based on the Divine Nature. Normal people like religion and does not hate it. The prophets (AS) and Imams (AS) also as the messengers and preachers of the religion withdraw anything that make the people hate the religion. According to the results of the present article, a large number of verses of the Holy Quran state both explicitly and implicitly that the unlawfulness of making the people hate the religion is a jurisprudential rule. According to this rule, any action that make the people hate the religion is thus unlawful. Even if exercising a religious rule or rules make the people escape the religion, it will be conditionally postponed until the necessary mental and cultural situation is prepared, unless the rules have so strong criteria and requirements that, as far as we know, the Divine Legislator will not abandon its execution in any condition.

System making based on religious jurisprudence and rules in order to complete the present systems and to compensate for the present gaps and lacks is a necessity for the new Islamic civilization. One of the most important ones is the international system and the current relations among nations. This system, in turn, is based on the contracts and treaties concluded among the states and the countries. Accordingly, the main subject in the present article is to look into the domain and the Quranic principles of the jurisprudence of the international treaties. The present text, using a descriptive-analytical method, seeks to answer the question that “what principles and domain does the jurisprudence of the international treaties have in the view of the Holy Quran?” According to the assumption of the present text, the jurisprudence of the international treaties, in the view of the Holy Quran, enjoys the principles and domain. Paying attention to these principles and domain may be influential in part of international Islamic system making. The precondition for system making in the area of international treaties based on the Quranic ayat-al-ahkam is an international peaceful coexistence. Relying on explicit and clear traditions, self-evident reason, and meta-jurisprudence like “justice”, as well as the Quranic rules like “nafy sabil”, “necessity of fidelity to the covenant” , “rule of no domination of unbelievers” the religious and Islamic rules and principles can be generalized to the domain of “Islamic international treaties” like “international Islamic treaties.”

In the view of Islam, human being - Muslim or non-Muslim- has a dignity that entitles him/her some rights. It has been bestowed by God to all human beings. Although every human may make erroneous choices that bring him/ her out of the limits of humanity and the merits of the dignity that God has bestowed him, only God can decide on the decline of the dignity. Even deserving the most sever punishments does not denote the decline of human dignity and the elimination of the rights thereto. The present article explains several traditional evidences that prove the non-Muslim human dignity in Islam. If human dignity can be proved as a jurisprudential rule, the contradiction of some jurisprudential rules or Quranic exegeses to that can serve to solve this problem. The assumption that human dignity in Islam is more limited than that in the modern human right, drives from the comparison between this kind of dignity and the ideals of the modern human rights - but not its realities. It seems that Islam introduces a more stable basis for identifying human dignity and supporting human rights.

The right is the most challenging concept discussed in the area of ethics, law, and politics in the modern thought. It is so important that the theoretical discussions around fundamental values like freedom, equality, and justice always resort to the language of right. However, applying the concept of right, due to its being controversial, inevitably entails encountering different and sometimes controversial thoughts and ideas that has provided a great opportunity for conflict of thoughts and theoretical oppositions. This is somehow a challenging concept and as soon as any discussion starts about it, a multidimensional argument begins about its concept, meaning, justifying principles, owners of the right, and the limits of exercising right. Accordingly, the present article, using a descriptive-analytical and prescriptive approach, aims at elaborating the meaning of right, while considering different verses of the Holy Quran. It also aims to explain, on the same basis, the necessity of distinguishing between the two concepts of being right and having the right. In addition, the article tries to speak of two rules of self-legislation and human dignity as the justifying principles of human rights claims and to seek the above-mentioned principles in the verses of the Holy Book. Finally, it reviews in details the limits of exercising right and the theoretical approaches to the ratio among the right, public interest, and general ethics. It also reviews several verses of the Holy Quran on this issue in order to make clear that the fundamentality of right is not attached to its “absoluteness.”

Islam has designed a system for the evolution of human society with its elements linked and related to each other, in a way that all its elements show a unique truth and a similar purpose. The system has been offered in the Holy Quran with three genetic, valued, and jurisprudential-legal subsystems which are related to each other. This is a comprehensive and effective program for managing human life. Some of the jurists and scholars of ethics believe that there is a fundamental difference between the elements of moral statements and jurisprudential statements of the Quran and they behave differently in practice. For the same reason, the present article aims at reaching the similarities between these two types of statements in the Holy Quran through contrasting the language of the moral and jurisprudential statements, and contrasting and examining the ratio of their analogous and important elements. It also aims to explain that they are linked to each other in terms of structure, purpose, and domain and that they manifest a unique truth. In addition it aims to prove that the above-mentioned subsystems have been offered and revealed in the form of intertwining subsystems and they have the same unique truth in terms of thobut and in the Guarded Tablet as they been revealed in terms of ethbat – after revelation- into a unique style with a unique structure and a common purpose. Therefore, they should not be differentiated in terms of deduction, systematization, and elements and the jurisprudential matters should not be raised practically without considering the moral values and requirements, because it causes great damages to the Islamic society.