نشریه فقه و اجتهاد
پیاپی 15 (بهار و تابستان 1400)

In the challenging issue of proving the emergence of the crescent of the lunar month, most jurists, based on the appearance of evidence, consider the sensory vision as the only criterion. However, with the new scientific findings, the exact time of the birth of the moon can be determined with certainty. This article tries to challenge the popular opinion and the sufficiency of sensory vision by analytical method using library sources to prove the validity of the definitive calculations of the birth of the moon and its compatibility with verses and hadiths. According to the results of the article, the Legislator (Shāriʿ) has not provided a new definition of the time frame of the obligation (Shahr) and has introduced the vision as the most conventional way of certainty to prove the crescent. In addition, the rejection of alternative ways other than vision, have been due to the invalidity of suspicion and estimation. The article, after presenting the introductory topics, reconsiders the evidence and evaluates the most important drawbacks of the lunar birth theory.

In Imami jurisprudence, unlike the Sunni denominations, in all obligatory and recommended prayers, there is an emphasis on performing qunūt, except for that of the Shafʿ prayer, about which there have been arguments. The main purpose of this study is to determine the ruling on the qunūt of the Shafʿ prayer from the perspective of Imami jurisprudence, but since it is necessary to get acquainted with the Sunni jurisprudence in order to better understand the narrations on qunūt and the effect of taqiyyah on them, in some cases the perspectives of other Islamic denominations are dealt, too. Until the beginning of the 11th century (A.H), Imami scholars, relying on the generalities and specifications of narrations, agreed on the istiḥbāb (being recommended) of qunūt in all prayers, but after that, some figures, based on a narration by ʿAbdullāh ibn Sanān, believed that qunūt was not recommended in the Shafʿ prayer. In the contemporary period, some jurists chose a third view; In other words, if the Shafʿ prayer is connected to the Vatr prayer, the qunūt is not recommended in the Shafʿ prayer, but in case of their separation, the qunūt is recommended in the Shafʿ prayer, too. In this descriptive-analytical study, using library data, the documents of the three perspectives were examined and it became clear that the famous view, i.e. the istiḥbāb of qunūt in the Shafʿ prayer, is correct; Because the generalities that indicate the istiḥbāb of qunūt in all prayers include the qunūt of the Shafʿ prayer, and the narration of ʿAbdullāh ibn Sanān, which is the most important document for the allocation of these generalities, in addition to being rejected by the ancients, should be carried on taqiyyah due to strong evidence.

The development of the frontiers of science has caused many new jurisprudential questions. Considering the feasibility of converting stem cells into sperm in the laboratory level, as well as the increase in the number of single girls, if these facts are introduced to the clinical environment, it can be imagined that single women will be able for fertility by using their own stem cells and converting them into sperm; Therefore, the question arises: from the point of view of jurisprudence, what is the ruling on fertilizing single women with the sperm prepared from their own stem cells? It seems that various reasons can be used to deduce the Shariʿa ruling on the issue. So, the present study uses ijtihādi analytical method to examine the pros and cons of jurisprudential arguments on the issue. It achieved the following: negating or forbidding evidence of the issue will be answerable, and by allowing such an action, there will be a profound effect on various issues, such as the strategic issue of population, the issue of lineage, and issues related to future generations; Of course, despite the fact that we concluded the ruling on the basis of evidence and industry, it is possible to consider the ban from another perspective, such as the contradiction with the view of jurisprudence or Shariʿa, as a personal achievement.

The rule of Tasāmuḥ (Tolerance) in the arguments of the Sunnah is about the weak arguments that promise a reward for an action and, according to some jurists, indicate that the action is recommended and one should not be strict in this regard. Since there are types of mustaḥabāt and makrūhāt in all jurisprudential categories, it is very important to address this rule. The present research intends to examine the rule and its scope from the perspective of the late Āyatullāh Bihjat, who criticized and evaluated it in his Mabāḥith al-Usūl as well as his lectures on issues beyond jurisprudence, and to answer the question that in case of a valid reason such as a document-credited narration indicating the non-desirability and inappropriateness of an action, how can one combine the arguments of the authority of a single narration and the rule of Tasāmuḥ in the arguments of the Sunnah that rule the desirability and appropriateness of the same action?   This research indicates that in Āyatullāh Bihjat’s theory, the narration of “man balagha”, as the most important reason for the rule of Tasāmuḥ, does not convey the authority of a weak narration indicating istiḥbāb, nor can the contents of this narration be considered as guidance. Rather, the main implication of these narrations is a secondary ruling on the bestowal of divine grace for someone who, being matured and having listened the narration, performs the action in the hope of its reward. Also, the solutions to the conflict are different, according to him; one of the most important of these solutions is referring to the option before practice, which he explain by relying on the basis of the option mentioned by the great scholars such as Kulainī and some of his masters in case of conflict.

The issue of the place of iʿtikāf is one of the disputed issues of Islamic jurists. According to the verses of the Qur'an, one of the conditions stipulated in performing the iʿtikāf is the presence of the Muʿtakif in the mosque, but there is a disagreement in the view of Islamic jurists as in which mosque the Muʿtakif can perform iʿtikāf. The aim of this research is a jurisprudential and thematic study on the instances of the place of iʿtikāf such as grand mosques in the Imami and Sunni narrative heritages. From the perspective of Imami jurisprudence, iʿtikāf is not valid in every usual place and it should be performed in the mosque, a fact that, in addition to the texts, has been confirmed by the majority of jurists. Surveying the statements of Imami jurists regarding the place of iʿtikāf, there three main and basic views are traceable: the first view says that every Mosque is appropriate. The second says that iʿtikāf is to be done in four or five special mosques, and according to the third view it is to be done in four special mosques and the grand mosques, among which the latter is accepted by the majority and the famous jurists. From the viewpoint of the Sunnis, iʿtikāf is valid in three special mosques and the mosques where people congregate (the grand mosque), and it is also valid where the Friday prayers are said.

Social jurisprudence is one of the specialized and additional sciences that is being considered by the elite of the seminary school today, and we are in our initial steps of explaining what this knowledge is. This knowledge, which studies jurisprudential issues with a social approach, has a good capacity to treat the new needs of the religious community with the method of Jawjāhiri jurisprudence.  On the other hand, according to the statement of the second phase of the Islamic revolution of Iran and the issue of creating a new Islamic civilization, it is necessary to raise a social approach to jurisprudential issues in order to provide the basis for systematization in social fields; On the other hand, by creating a jurisprudential system, the ground for challenging Western systems and Western civilization is also provided. Among the schools of jurisprudence, Imam Khomeini's school of jurisprudence has a good capacity to produce social jurisprudence due to its richness of topics such as the method of aggregation of opinions, custom, rule of Lā Ḍarar, the role of the Islamic ruler and legal speeches. In this paper, relying on the library sources and descriptive-analytical method, the capacities of Imam Khomeini's school of jurisprudence in the production of social jurisprudence will be surveyed.