نشریه فقه و اجتهاد
پیاپی 19 (بهار و تابستان 1402)

political oust and protest are types of opposition and struggle against the established political system. In the first one, the dissident chooses isolation and seclusion and seeks to weaken the ruling political system by non-participation and political silence. In political protest, opposition is expressed by action with the intention of endamage the political system. Examining the jurisprudential point of view of Shia jurists - especially Moḥaqeq Nāini- regarding the jurisprudential rule of political oust and protest is the problem of the present research.This article through descriptive – analytical way and library information says that the Shia jurisprudents until the constitutional movement have made a distinction between the just rulers and cruel ones in the issue of political protest and oust. Although the Shia jurists theoretically consider political protest and oust towards cruel ruler to be justified; But their practical way has focused more on political oust. They have not mentioned political oust in relation to just rulers; At the same time, they considered the political protest unjustified. In addition to the fact that Nāini clearly considers political oust as a kind of struggle against the established government; He has also included political protest in his jurisprudential thought. From some of Naini's jurisprudential opinions, it can be concluded that he confused the issue of "Advice to the Muslims" with political protest, and as a result, he considered political protest justified even against a just ruler, while the subject of political protest - in the sense that was expressed - is the cruel ruler.

The inference of jurisprudential rulings is valid and can be attributed to the religion if it is compatible with other Sharia texts and proofs. In the current jurisprudential methodology, only consistency in the indications of words is methodically considered as a criterion for evaluation and validation of jurisprudential interpretations of texts. Considering this criterion to be insufficient in the field of transaction jurisprudence, the present article has developed the criterion of "compatibility" in three layers: compatibility in the layer of indications of words, logical compatibility between the components of the system of propositions and functional compatibility between the function of the set of components with the macro goals of the system. The research method in this article is analytical and descriptive method and library information. The use of the above criteria can lead to more accurate jurisprudential inferences and prevent wrong perceptions from entering the system of jurisprudential propositions. Finally, in a case study, these criteria have been used in examining the proofs of zakat, especially zakat on gold and silver, and considering the consistency criteria in the above three layers, it has been shown that zakat on current credit money with the aim to create more mobility for Money, to create incentives for financing based on debt and wealth redistribution.

The limit of spousal support is one of the most important issues in jurisprudence, which despite having a long history in jurisprudential sources, still suffers from lack of clarity due to ambiguity in the criteria and evidence of the obligation of support and the different interpretations of jurists on verses and hadiths. In this article, with the analytical descriptive method and the library information, an attempt has been made to take a step towards disambiguating this debate by quickly rereading the proofs of this issue and controverting in some jurisprudential opinions, and then the requirement of chosen point of view in this issue for the discussion of women's employment will be stated. Based on the findings of the research in the first part, the view of the jurists who believe that the wife's support is limited to food and clothing and not including all the financial needs of the wife, has been strengthened. In the second part, regardless of the introduction of various capacities other than support that a woman can provide her financial needs through them, we have considered the requirement of the mentioned point of view for the discussion of women's employment to prove its priority, provided that there is no guarantee that the financial needs of the wife will be provided by other means.

The most Imami jurists have insisted on expediency in possessions of the compulsory guardian on incapables' properties, even some have claimed consensus on it. The jurists, following the most Foqahā, have considered the influence of the compulsory guardian's possession conditional on compliance with expediency. In the civil law, the influence of the compulsory guardian's possession in the property of the incapables' properties is conditional on compliance with expediency. On the other hand, some jurists have not set any condition for the compulsory guardian's possessions, but considered it to be absolutely valid. In this research, using a descriptive-analytical method and by collecting library information, while rereading the words of jurists and examining evidence from verses, narrations and consensus, it has been proven that both sayings are incomplete: in the theory of the unconditioned guardianship, the verse and narrations cited in terms of the implication to the claim are confused, in the theory of expediency, the proofs presented are also incomplete: the cited verses and traditions do not imply the claim, the claimed consensus is also incomplete because there is no stablished consensus on this issue and the quoted consensus in terms of realization is doubtful, so this consensus is a documented or at least there is a possibility of documentary about it, so it is not a proof, As a result, the compulsory guardian's possessions in the incapable's properties is neither absolutely valid nor conditional on the existence of expediency, but the mere absence of the corruption is sufficient.

One of the most important issues in the field of medical jurisprudence is the issue of harming a person to his own body, which is called self-harm. Apparently, none of the jurists have doubted the forbiddingness of harming the oneself that leads to the destruction of the self or the amputation of a body part; However, damages less than death and amputation have been disputed and most jurists have considered it impermissibility and others have considered it permissible. Those who say about forbiddingness have provided various proofs for it, but none of them cited the proofs of forbiddingness of squander and waste.
This article answers this question with descriptive analytical method and library information: Is it possible to prove the forbiddingness of self-harm to a lesser amount than suicide and organ amputation by referring to the proofs of the forbiddingness of squander and waste? That is, are the proofs that indicate the forbiddingness of squander and wastage also applicable in the issue of self-harm or not? The findings of this research show that different methods can be imagined to invoke the proofs of forbiddingness of squander and wastage, but the only correct method is to use the method of adjustment of criteria and rational priority, which can state the priority of self-preservation compared to property. Therefore, it is possible to use the proofs of forbiddingness of squander to prove the forbiddingness of self-harm.

Knowing the causes of disbelief is of particular importance due to its many rulings. Denial of divinity and prophethood is one of the cases that Islamic jurists unanimously agree is a cause of disbelief. In addition, doubt in divinity and mission has also been considered as a cause of disbelief in some authentic texts. However, in jurisprudential sources, this factor of disbelief is rarely discussed. Therefore, it seems necessary to know this factor and to research about the quality of its influence in the realization of disbelief. The following article deals with the quality of influence of doubt in divinity and mission in the realization of disbelief with the descriptive analytical method and the way of library information collection. The findings of this research indicate that doubting the divinity and mission based on valid traditions leads to disbelief. However, excommunication of the doubter is only permissible in terms of proofing if the doubter denies divinity or mission. Therefore, he will not be excommunicated until the doubter does not deny his divinity or mission.

Sāheb Jawāher (r.a) regarding the "commandment" of treatment, based on the forms of the "therapist", formed three categories: "specialization", "non-specialization" and "reliance on normal experiences in treatment" and based on some traditions, he has deemed the later form permissible. Considering the importance of the issue and preparing the ground of misuse of this point of view, the present article evaluated it with the analytical descriptive method and the library information collection and showed that such treatment is an example of risk taking, the first rule of Sharia and rationality, on the forbiddingness and ugliness of taking risks.Due to the weakness of the document or the incompleteness of the proofs' indication, his documentation cannot bring the issue out of the rule; In addition, according to numerous evidences, specialization in medicine is necessary. Therefore, the opinion of the Ṣāḥeb Jawāher (r.a) is not acceptable, at least the absoluteness of his words cannot be validated and any treatment and medicine with simple experience cannot be prescribed. This research considered his claim specific to the past period and with current medical achievements, it came to the conclusion that self-medication with high-risk treatments or harmful chemical drugs is absolutely not allowed today; In serious diseases, it is not allowed to be limited to home remedies and superficial drugs, but one should act based on modern medical knowledge. However, in non-serious diseases, there is no problem with traditional treatments and harmless herbal medicines, and the later case can be an example of the claim of sāheb Jawāher (r.a)