مجله پژوهش های فقهی
سال هجدهم شماره 3 (پاییز 1401)

The holy law of Islam (shari'a) and consequently Article 1105 of the Iranian Civil Code has charged the husband with the duty of leading the family. According to the provisions 1108 of the same law, the wife is obliged to obey the husband. On the other hand by changing the patterns of human life in the contemporary world and the women’s inclinations toward social businesses and duties, obedience to the husband is not possible for them at any time. The findings of the study indicate that leaving the house without the wife's permission is contrary to the obedience of the husband and the jurists have been always disagree with this matter. The researcher, using descriptive and analytical method, emphasizes this idea. Although obedience in marital life is one of the basic and desirable effects of marriage, it is not inherent in the marriage contract, but it is requirement of the marriage contract and it is considered as an example of husband's rights to his wife. Therefore, working women who are forced to leave home can agree on the issue of the time of obedience with their husband before marriage according to their wishes in order to prevent any possible disputes after marriage contract.

The acceptance of principle of no restrictions on the methods of expressing the will of individuals in concluding contracts in Imamiyyah jurisprudence and Iranian law, as well as the increasing development of technology and the using of electronic devices by individuals has led to the emergence of a legal phenomenon called electronic contracts. Iranian legislature also has adopted a law under the title of Electronic Commerce Law in 2003. There is no definition of electronic contract in this law and the legislature only suffices to define the term remote contract which does not seem to show the concept of electronic contract well. According to the study conducted in works of prominent scholars of Imamiyyah jurisprudence and Iranian law, it cannot be said that this type of contract has been defined or at least a precise definition has been provided. Even, there is disagreement among jurisprudential scholars and jurists in the definition of contract. The simplest and most general definition of this type of contract is that it is a contract concluded by electronic devices. This definition does not seem to be accurate and in accordance with the Iranian e-commerce law. Therefore, this article will examine the nature and concept of electronic contracts.

Referring to religious texts like different parts of the narration of Dharif ibn Nasih, Imamiyyah jurists extracted a principle based on which the bone fracture of the organ having a definite blood money will have one-fifth of that organ's blood money if not recovered. If it is fully recovered, it will have four-twenty fifth of the blood money for that organ. This rule has been inserted in article 569 of the Islamic Penal Code, as well. Nevertheless, there are certain intricacies on the scope of the rule and its religious and jurisprudential evidence which makes it a challenging one to hold. A contemplation on the evidence of the rule for the blood money of fracture, on Imamiyyah jurists' articulation, reveals that the extraction of this rule from the tradition narrated from Dharif, given the different parts of this tradition, faces some serious challenges. Yet, this paper proves that if, due to any possible causes such as legislative requirements, we were to offer a rule concerning bone fractures, some other parts of the tradition narrated from Dharif can come to help and give us firm grounds to introduce a rule according to which the bone fracture of an organ with determined blood money, if recovered without flaw, will have one-fifth of that organ's blood money. If not recovered or in the case of incomplete recovery of the fracture, due to the lack of a religious determination, Arsh will be prescribed.

Looking at the book of Al-Faqih by Sheikh Sadouq, one of the jurists connected to the time of the absence of Imam of the Age (may God hasten his reappearance), it can be said that he has opposing views on issues related to the dissolution of marriage like other chapters of jurisprudence. In five cases, they are: 1- Not counting the permissible divorce in three divorces that cause the separation of the woman. 2- Proximity between divorce and childbirth that is the waiting period of divorce of a pregnant woman. 3- Testing male impotence by claiming it by a woman in three ways: putting the man in cold water, feeding the man with fresh fish, and putting saffron perfume in the woman's uterus. 4- Causing permanent separation if the woman curses her dead husband (conjugal anathema). 5- Restriction causing conjugal anathema (Li'an) in rejecting the child. However, these opinions have a strong narrative support, so apart from the existing jurisprudential consensus and famous opinions, one can judge and choose between their jurisprudential theories. Perhaps this can be a factor to change the topics of the second chapter of the seventh book of the Civil Code (pertaining to dissolution of marriage), which mostly follow the famous opinions of the jurists to express the rules. This article uses an analytical-critical method of research and library and documentary data collection procedure.

Islamic Penal Code approved in 1392 has undergone some serious changes as compared with the Islamic Penal Code 1370. One of the topics that undergone drastic change was the punishment of the person committed sodomy. According to article 110 of old law, the death penalty was intended for it, but in new law with the condition of Ehsan, the punishment was described in details. This change was based on an infrequent jurisprudential point of view. This article, with the exact revision of jurisprudential texts and theoretical analysis of two main views on the issue, aims at showing that if the dominant doctrine of the jurists is ignored, there are enough firm evidence and documents for the opposing doctrine (that was the basis of this change) which have been acknowledged even by the adherents of the dominant doctrine.

Hoarding means to save foodstuffs or to buy and avoid selling in the intention of increasing the price. Although the jurists agree on the preference of hoarding, they disagree on its defining law. The majority of the jurists agree that it is unlawful. However, a number of jurists hold that it is abominable. Of course, the sound view is the dominant doctrine, because the narrations on cursing and punishing the hoarders on the one hand, and paralleling them with thieves and drinkers on the other hand are not in any way consistent with abomination. Although the dominant doctrine among the jurists based on the contents of Sakouni,s tradition restricts hoarding to six items including wheat, barley, date, curry, vegetable oil and olive oil, it seems that the words should not be restricted and a broader scope of hoarding should be considered. Since according to Imam 'Ali,s  Covenant to Malik Ashtar in which hurting others is expressed as the criterion of hoarding as well as the no-harm rule hoarding cannot be restricted only to these items, but it also includes other needed non-food items.