فصلنامه جستارهای فقهی و اصولی
سال هفتم شماره 2 (پیاپی 23، تابستان 1400)

The principle of ‘Priority the corruption prevention on expediency attracting’ is one of Fiqhi principles which has been cited in various Fiqhi and Usuli issues, but not independently examined. With a descriptive-analytical approach, this study shows that although some contemporary thinkers have denied the implementation of this principle in legal issues, there are many reasons for its validity. The false imagination which says that the concept of this principle is the priority of absolute corruption on absolute expediency is the most important origination of denial of that principle. Since this principle is concerned with genus and nature of corruption and expediency, it is not inconsistent to give priority to one of the expediency’s items for another reason over corruption. With this explanation, it is clear that this principle come up under Aham (the most important) principle. In such a way, what is the most important one takes precedence in the conflict between corruption and expediency, and corruption prevention takes precedence in the case of equality.

Imami Jurists, due to the importance of prudential concealment (Taqīyah) in the Shiʻi thought system and to great emphasis of Islamic Shariʻa on this subject, have regarded in explaining its effects as greatly significant, taken to its legal (fiqhi) inference and presented view in the context of situational (Waḍʻī) and obligational (Taklīfī) rulings in prudential concealment Behavior. Various issues and views have been come up in the fiqhi works concerning situational ruling (Ḥukm Waḍʻī) of worships and prudential concealment transactions. But general foundations of Ijtihadi views have not been independently explained. For this reason, while critically rethinking the opinions, this article analyzes the principles and documents of situational ruling of prudential concealment behavior and re-examines the effects of those principles in the field of worships and transactions. In this study, which is written in a descriptive-analytical method, the general legal proofs in permission to obey prudential concealment (Taqīyyah traditions), Hadith Rafʻ, Meysūr principle and discovering the edict by prudential concealment obeying through connecting the worships edicts to prudential concealment ethics is accepted as the basics of judging the validity in obeying the prudential concealment. Based on mentioned basics, situational ruling of validity and its effects in worships and transactions performs in the condition of prudential concealment provided that urgency and conformity of the title would be customarily true about the remaining amount of action. The effect of validity of devotional-prudential concealment behaviors is that worship does not need to make it up or restore it and expected effects of unilateral obligations and contracts result in prudential concealment transactions.

Based on the theory that says the retaliation (Qiṣaṣ( right is takhyīrī (choosing between two or more alternatives), the next of kin (Walī Dam) and victim are free to choose the retaliation or to ask for the blood money. On the other hand, proponents of the theory that says this right is absolute obligatoriness (taʻyīnī), believe that the next of kin and injured persons in intentional crimes do not have the right to demand blood money without criminal’s consent. Taʻyīnī theory, from the beginning, was made the basis of Islamic criminal law by the lawmaker of the Islamic Republic. However, because in practice, this theory is facing problems and negative consequences such as shed the murdered blood with impunity, in 1392/2013 the lawmaker, following some jurists, passed a law that in cases where the retaliation is conditional upon the rejection of blood money differentials (Faḍil), the next of kin do not have the right to demand blood money. Nevertheless, there are still some practical problems of Taʻyīnī theory. The domination of the theory which says retaliation right being optional (Takhyīrī) in law is the only way to solve this problems. Assuming that evidences of this theory in Imami fiqh are rare and its principles are weak, the lawmaker has not made it the basis of the law. This study has tried to prove that the theory is not rare and its fiqhi evidences are convincing.

Following the changing of society’s attitudes,   the alteration of thinkers’ attitudes of every age toward ‘criminal phenomenon’, regulations and, rules of criminal law has always been changed. Thereby, criminal law has so far passed three stages of ‘crime-centeredness’, ‘felon-centeredness’ and ‘victimized-centeredness’. Determining the ‘scale of Crime committed’, ‘measurement of felon's dangerousness’ and ‘rights and needs of victimized persons’ are respectively the criteria of determining the punishments or responding appropriately toward criminal phenomena in scales of justice. Due to being conventional many of the answers of our criminal jurisprudence, it seems that they are also based on ‘crime-centeredness’ approach of the customary practice in the age of divine legislation. Moreover, in addition to punishing, there is not enough attention paid to the need of individualizing these punishments commensurate with the variety of felon's dangerous situations and the kinds of rights and needs of Victimized. By highlighting the domination of crime-centeredness’ approach of criminal jurisprudence, this article reminds you to pay more attention to time and place demands and specialized thoughts of criminal law in respect to making more measured criminal policy for modern criminal jurisprudence. Because it seems that some conventional developments in criminal law have gained such acceptance and generality that resisting these developments will cause damage to the acceptability and validity of criminal jurisprudence. The Infallibles practical way of life about the correction and recovery of felons and their attention to the rights and needs of victims should be received much attention and the high capacity of discretionary punishment must be used in order to complete the current punishment for intentional crimes. Key Words: Dynamic Jurisprudence, Criminal Jurisprudence, Crime-Centeredness, Felon-Centeredness, Intentional Crimes.

Permissibility or non-permissibility of receiving direct costs for judging such as judge’s remuneration from parties to a lawsuit is one of the most controversial issues in the judgment matter.Receiving the remuneration from parties to a lawsuit was not considered permissible by the renowned majority of the Imami jurists. They believe that a needy judge should earning his livelihood from public treasury.On the other hand, some other group of jurists believe that the presented evidences by the renowned majority of jurists is not competent to prove the prohibition opinion.Both views and their evidences have been examined in this study.  While rejecting the view of the renowned majority of jurists, the view of permission which is more compatible with the rules and principles that dominate the Islamic judicial jurisprudence has been preferred in this article. It has been also proven that when the judge’s remuneration can be paid by parties to a lawsuit there is no reason to impose such a heavy burdenon the public treasury.

According to the view of the renowned majority of the jurists and based on paragraph 9 of Article 84 Code of Judicial Procedure, the inadmissibility of a lawsuit is one of the objections and obstacles to handling the petition. So according to this law, the person’s right will violate just with his doubt about the petition in many cases and assumptions, while this is contrary to constitution law No. 34. The present study, using a descriptive-analytical method, shows that the mentioned condition is not clearly stated in any specific evidence, but on the contrary, the inclusiveness of Quran’s verses, specific narrations, proofs and, the principle of not imposing condition indicate that it is not a condition. It seems that this legal article must be corrected.

One of the most important rules which dominated the blood-money rule is the rule of blood-money of single and paired organs which has been construed as the rule of blood-money of single and paired organs. The mentioned rule indicates that full blood-money must be paid for damaging a single organ or both of paired organs and half of blood-money for damaging an organ of a paired. This rule is codifiedin Article 563 of the Islamic Penal Code in 2013. But despite that, the scope of inclusiveness is not determined within the rule of blood-money of a single and paired organs with regard to being the main part of the body or subordinate of that.For this regard, inquiring into Fiqhi books and jurists’ opinions while examining some examples of organs, the writers, due to the attention of narrations to some organs, have gained access to this important point that it is aimed at those organs which are the main. This attention is endorsed by the necessity of proportionality between crime and blood-money and also customary reliance. So, regarding the blood-money of some subordinate organs such as nipples and nostrils which there is a special and reliable tradition about the value of blood-money, it is judged based on the said rule.  According to the claim of this study of non-inclusiveness of the rule toward subordinate organs, it is judge to arsh (compensation payable in the case of offences against the body) for those subordinate organs such as spinal cord, clavicle and appendix which there is no special rule to prove the blood-money other than the said rule.