نشریه فقه و اجتهاد
پیاپی 10 (پاییز و زمستان 1397)

The precedence of the people's right over the God's right is one of the prevalent  propositions which is employed as a rule, that may seem necessary at first glance, to deduce. However, referring to jurisprudential books shows that some jurists have criticized and rejected this rule. The importance of the issue on the one hand and the the pioneers' disagreement over it on the other hand, necessitate the present research. The present article surveys the issue using a library method and an analytical-ijtihadi approach. Examination of the arguments for the precedence of the people's right over God's right shows that narrations and arguments presented to prove such a precedence are not sufficient to prove it, additionally, the proofs that indicate precedence of God's right over that of the people, are not sufficiently proving it. Therefore, no general rule can be given in this regard; Maybe there might be a case in which the people's right precedes that of God or vice versa.

One of the ways to discover the Shari'a rulings in the range of instances and subjects about which no evidence has come from the Holy Shari'a is to rely on the generalities and applications of the Shari'a. Undoubtedly, these arguments can be applied to the titles and examples that existed at the time of the issuance of the Shari'a, but they can not be applied to the emerging titles and topics that have not been traced back in the past times and were unfamiliar and strange to the custom of that time, about which there are many drawbacks and obstacles that need to be investigated. In this article, we have expressed different views on this theory and finally, despite the numerous drawbacks that have been raised in this regard, we have only mentioned some of them briefly coming to the conclusion that reliance on the generalities and applications of Sharia regarding some emerging instances that have been completely unknown in the minds of the previous custom and the Shari'a has not been able to express them, are not permissible and other ways should be used to express the rulings on these issues.

The increasing importance and development of sports and related issues has brought a lot of discussions and questions to our jurisprudence, so that there is a tendency for creating a specialized subject as "sports jurisprudence". It should be acknowledged that dealing with sports jurisprudence should be done by studying and examining the underlying questions; For example, can sports jurisprudence be considered as a specialized jurisprudential subject and, basically, where is its place in the jurisprudence system? And what steps should be taken to establish it? The present article, by looking at the status of sports and expressing the necessity and criteria for specialization of jurisprudence, has proved that sports jurisprudence includes these criteria; therefore it should be properly scrutinized. The creation and optimal development of specialized sports jurisprudence should be step by step and with an appropriate program, especially because in this course the existence of a comprehensive educational program is needed in such a way that it can be presented in seminaries and jurisprudential centers. Also, the presence of appropriate professors and educational texts is among the most important requirements.

Kicking the abdomen in case of resulting in the discharge of urine or feces is one of the crimes discussed in Imami jurisprudence, which is referred to as "Dous al-Batn". The jurists disagree on the extent and manner of punishing such a crime. The famed of them believe that the punishment for a criminal in this case is retaliation or payment of one-third of the full blood money. This view is based on the Sokouni (stable) narration and the consensus of the jurists. On the other hand, some jurists believe in the absence of retaliation and the proof of measured compensation (Arsh). Analyzing the two aforementioned views and their arguments, the present article, has finally found the decision of measured compensation in accordance with the jurisprudential guidelines and has considered the view of those who believe in the permission of retaliation or one-third payment of the blood money to be incomplete. It has been concluded so due to the fact that the known documented narration is not capable of standing against the proof of measured compensation for reasons like the rarity of the issuance of such a decree and the probability of life risk for the criminal.

There are some rules and traditions in Islamic law inducing which it is not unlikely that a general rule could be derived under the title of "proportionality of benefits and guarantee". If such a rule is accepted, wherever a guarantee is proved, a proportionate benefit must also be deducted, and also in any case where a benefit is proved for a person, a guarantee must also be deducted.This paper examines the issue in a critical analytical method using library documents. Examination of the evidence in this regard shows that there are some rules that justify and approve the necessity of establishing such a rule, as its origins. According to the evidence, the proportionality rule itself is accredited by Islamic law, as a result, any obligation disregarding the feature mentioned above is legally rejected unless a specific reason permits it, and in cases where the guarantee or benefit is proved, the designation of the instance of benefit and equivalent guarantee requires a legal or rational justification.

One of the important topics regarding enjoining the good and forbidding the wrong is the  levels of enjoining and forbidding. Due to some ambiguities over the subject, this article has tried to take a step towards further clarifying its dimensions and angles with an Ijtihadi approach and analyzing the narrations about the issue throught a survey of the fatwas of the jurists. The results of the study show that the problem could be modified or presicely restated in six axes including: the threefold levels of the good and forbidding the wrong, the sufficiency of heartfelt denial in the obviation of the assignment, the reasons given for precedence of verbal command and prohibition to practical ones, the necessity of classification of methods of enjoining the good and forbidding the wrong, considering the avoidance of participation in sinful gatherings as one of the methods of enjoining the good and forbidding the wrong, considering practical enjoining the good and forbidding the wrong as a public duty, or perceiving it conditioned to the permission of the Infallible (P.B.U).

Retrial or appeal, which is considered in jurisprudence as a violation of the ruler's judgment, is one of the prevalent issues in which the jurists' view is contrary to what the current trend of the courts is; This is because violating the verdict in jurisprudence is not permissible, while appealing is a common practice in the courts. The present study investigates this challenge through a critical analytical method using library documents. Examination of the evidence shows that the judgments of ordinary courts are revisable; However, the judicial verdicts of the Supreme Court as well as the Revolution Courts can be revised only if it is proved to the next Mujtahid judge that the previous judge has not had the necessary Ijtihad and competence, or neglected or violated his Ijtihad and ruling, or he has not judged according to the standards of authentic Imami Ijtihad, and his verdict could be violated.