فصلنامه پژوهش های فقه و حقوق اسلامی
سال هجدهم شماره 1 (پیاپی 66، زمستان 1400)

There is no doubt that suicide is forbidden in Shariat. It is based on many verses and traditions and has been claimed by consensus. However, there may be cases where suicides occur not because of the usual motives but as a result of the person being placed under specific situations. Suicides in the form of punishment, or committing it due to excitement and panic, being the victim, preserving chastity, torture-related suicide and also for the sake of superior interests cannot be regarded as other types of suicide. Here the concept of suicide and its implications is beyond doubt. If the suicide committed as a result of absence of intention, the legal and juridical effects of suicide would be eliminated and the cause of it would be responsible. Jurists have different views on suicides due to necessity. Some consider the necessity applicable but for homicide and some consider this rule to be applicable to all, including suicide. The author believes in the latter. In the case of suicide for the sake of supreme interest, if the benefit is Islam and Islamic Government, suicide will be permitted in the enclosure of two injunctions (suicide and disclosure of secrets) with regard to the principle of the most important.

The participation of people and social institutions in the criminal trial process is among the embodies of "collaborative criminal policy", which has different functions in the scope of criminal law and response to crime and criminality.In fact, the failure of the criminal justice system in preventing delinquency by resorting to unilateral and repressive approaches led scholars of the criminal rights to think about the policies of "non-intervention of criminal rights" or in its modified form, "limiting its intervention in the criminal process" and instead of that, introducing more people and social institutions.The conclusion of the research is that Iran's criminal justice system influenced by the developments of criminal sciences and inspired by the basics of jurisprudential and trusted by civil society and in order to take advantage of popular participation capacity and social institutions, proceed to predicting institutions such as criminal mediation, recognizing non-govermental organizations and alternative penalties.This matter in Imamiyah jurisprudence as the main source of Iran's criminal law has emerged obviously in all stages of criminal proceedings, even before conducting the criminal process.

An unfair condition is considered ineffective in the Iranian e-commerce law to the detriment of the consumer. The law does not provide a definition of an ineffective condition and it has allowed the judge to decide whether that is effective or not. Although there is nothing called unfair condition in established jurisprudence, the principles of jurisprudence have made everything clear. According to the jurisprudential principles, the task is clear and these conditions are despite the principle of freedom of contracts, is supported by Imami jurisprudence. If it is to the detriment of one of the parties to the contract, it is one of the cases that, in addition to being voided, invalidates the condition of the contract, such as the condition contrary to the requirements of the contract, observing justice and fairness and avoiding harm to the transaction. All these are instances of how Imami jurisprudence deals with unfair condition. International legal systems also view the unfair condition as being invalid and ineffective.

At the whole we talk about fairness maxims of dispute resolution in this essay. From our view and based on principles of procedure justice any dispute resolution mechanism must have three important principles: equal treatment with parties to dispute, rationality in making decision and efficiency that this one contains access and possibility to reach to a dispute resolution and being tools for counter with procedural inequalities between parties in turn. According to access and possibility to reach to a dispute resolution parties should be able to reach to a dispute resolution mechanism. Proceeding on this method should be done by minimum costs and delay and based on the second criterion those issues making problem for parties for taking part in proceedings, which are not arisen of proceeding rules but have been created by one party inability to take part equally in process should be balanced or eliminated.

According to Imamiyeh jurisprudence, an all-qualified authoritative jurist after the establishment of Islamic government enjoys a borderless all-inclusive guardianship over world Muslims. Based on the theory of appointment, every all-qualified jurist possess an authoritative guardianship position, however, in the contemporary world, due to political considerations, an all-inclusive borderless guardianship of jurist over Muslims is challenged by international law system. Thus, the current research is an attempt to study the feasibility of the polarity of authorities in the age of nations-states and then develop a strategy which helps the goals of the guardianship system of jurists fulfilled. It is concluded that, there is not any inherent limitation in Imamiyeh jurisprudence for applying absolute authority but its feasibility beyond borders is challenged by political impediments (also called international legal system). Thus, considering these limitations, the theory of plurality of authorities is not only beyond the boundaries of flaw but also serves as the best strategy for fulfillment of new Islamic civilization.

Blood is one of the eleven impurities that is recognized in the holy sharia of Islam and its use is also forbidden. In the past, not only were there no benefits to blood, but there was also hatred. Most of the first Sadr jurists who were exposed to this issue have expressed fatwas sanctifying blood trade. The sayings of the jurists in this matter are: absolute sanctity, detail between impure and pure blood, independent sanctity and permission along with other objects, permission to trade in cases of lawful interests. The arguments of those who believe in sanctity are: consensus, non-taxation of blood, impurity of blood, originality of corruption in contracts, support for sin, verses, and narrations. But today, with the advancement of medical knowledge and the various uses of blood, especially human blood and its products, it has found a special vital place. The subject of time and place and its requirements in the field of jurisprudence is something that has been evident in the jurisprudence of Imam Khomeini since the pre-Islamic period, and has been directly related to the nature of realism in his jurisprudence. One example of this dynamic ijtihad is his views on the blood transaction. This article tries to study the blood transaction according to the opinions of Imami jurists.

Although the legislature, by deleting Article 1309 of the Civil Code, has limited the probative power of testimony, and for this reason, today any claim can be proved by testimony, but testimony in terms of validity of the result, due to the weakness of different powers in understanding events, including power of sight, hearing and memory and the effects of external factors on testimony such as bribery, threats, media, etc. are questionable and also face obstacles in terms of qualifying; conditions such as justice, faith, etc., which are very difficult to prove. That is the reason why the legislator in Article 241 of the Code of Civil Procedure has provided the courts with the recognition of the value and effects of testimony so that even when the conditions of testimony and testimony are apparently combined, it can not affect it in the ways stated. What emerges in this article is an examination of the same obstacles, problems, and challenges that testimony faces.

Smart contracts are computer transaction protocols to enforce contract terms. There are two objectives for smart contracts; one that satisfies the usual terms of the contract such as terms and conditions of payments, the maintenance of confidentiality and completion of the contract, and the other one to minimize random and intentional exceptions and the need for trusted intermediaries. Smart contracts in their internal mode are merely programmed codes that are created to facilitate the original contracts and so they are not contracts but in the external model, they are agreements that are implicitly included in the original contracts and there are contracts. The contracts in the external model are binding pursuant to the article 10 of the Iranian Civil Code and also the powers to cancel the contracts are executed to them. However, some types of these powers such as delay in payment are not possible due to the nature of the contract. Nowadays, smart contracts have many obstetrical along the way of which one of the main issues that we can name is privacy in contracts.

Commercial papers (checks, drafts, and promissory notes) are issued at person’s will. It is possible for them to be endorsed, guaranteed and accepted by others, resulting from their intent to accept legal obligations. This action may be done by representatives. Despite the jurisprudential principles of Islamic law, no research has been conducted in this field to analyze and approach these principles. Therefore, the scientific conclusions in the compilation are purely form-based, and the same can be found in the rules and regulations relating to these documents. Looking at these four legal practices from this angle will provide a new approach based on jurisprudence and give this section of the trade law rules a solid basis. On the other hand, many of the existing gaps will also be rationally and fundamentally resolved by these principles. Special features and rules governing them may sometimes limit the scope of general rules of contracts over them. The possibility of successive transfer of these documents and the principle of speed in the business requires the protection of the owner in good faith in order to rely on these documents which has been analyzed in various ways.

One of the important topics in the field of information technology is hacking information systems, i.e. finding the security vulnerabilities of a system to infiltrate and access its information, which can be done with different motives and can follow desirable or undesirable consequences at both individual and public levels and in different fields. This is why hackers are classified into different types, such as white hats, gray hats, and black hats. The purpose of this descriptive-analytic research is to investigate the legitimacy of hacking in Islamic jurisprudence. The findings of the present study show that hacking does not have the same jurisprudential results and varies based on the intentions and actions of the hackers.  White hat hackers are legitimate, but black hat hackers are illegitimate. The most important component in analyzing the legitimacy of a hack is "more expediency" and the most important factor in its illegality is "unauthorized violation of the rights of others". Hence, if for the most important expediency, there is no other way but to hack information systems, action is not forbidden.