پژوهشنامه حقوق اسلامی
پیاپی 65 (پاییز 1403)

The concept of "spontaneous mental occurrence" or "Tabador" (springing to the mind first) plays a critical and intricate role within Islamic jurisprudential theory and practice. The term, deeply rooted in the tradition of Principles of Islamic jurisprudence [Usul al-Fiqh], denotes an immediate and intuitive perception or understanding of concepts without the need for deliberative thought. This concept is pivotal for understanding how Sharia rulings are derived and applied. In Islamic jurisprudence, the relevance and applicability of a Sharia ruling depend fundamentally on its subject matter; the ruling is only operative if its respective subject exists. Thus, the spontaneous mental occurrence helps bridge the cognitive gap between the abstract rule and its practical subject, making the law's application both possible and meaningful. In the context of legal reform, especially within the framework of Islamic codified laws, understanding and validating the role of spontaneous mental occurrence becomes crucial. This is due to its potential to either solidify or undermine the legitimacy and effectiveness of legal interpretations and applications in contemporary contexts.

The primary research question of this article is: how does spontaneous mental occurrence [Tabador] influence the interpretation of legal-jurisprudential propositions in the post-legislative validation process of Islamic codified laws? This question is examined through the lens of both traditional Islamic jurisprudence and contemporary legal challenges, seeking to establish whether this concept can consistently provide a reliable basis for interpreting the words of the lawgiver as they were intended at the time of legislation, and how it translates into current legal applications.

The hypothesis posited in this research is that spontaneous mental occurrence, while historically significant and deeply embedded in Islamic jurisprudential practice, may face substantial challenges in its application to modern legal systems due to the dynamic nature of language and societal evolution. These challenges primarily involve the conjectural nature of interpreting historical texts with contemporary meanings, which may lead to discrepancies between original legislative intents and current understandings. The research aims to assess the validity of spontaneous mental occurrence in bridging these interpretative gaps, with a focus on whether it can be reliably used without succumbing to conjectural inaccuracies and historical disconnections.

Methodology & Framework, if Applicable:

This article employs a doctrinal and critical approach, utilizing a descriptive-analytical methodology to examine the concept of spontaneous mental occurrence in principles of Islamic jurisprudence. The research framework is multidisciplinary, drawing from both Eastern and Western philosophical traditions, including the works of prominent philosophers and logicians such as Ibn Sina and Martin Heidegger, as well as Islamic scholars of Islamic jurisprudence. This broad perspective allows for a comprehensive analysis of the concept from various philosophical and legal angles.
     The methodology involves a critical review of historical and contemporary texts on principles of Islamic jurisprudence, analysis of case studies where spontaneous mental occurrence has been applied, and a comparative study with other legal systems where similar concepts might exist. Additionally, the research incorporates discussions with contemporary Islamic scholars and jurists to understand current perspectives and applications of spontaneous mental occurrence in legal interpretations. This blend of theoretical analysis and practical inquiry is designed to thoroughly examine the strengths and weaknesses of relying on spontaneous mental occurrence for legal interpretation in the modern era.
     This framework is intended to not only validate the concept of spontaneous mental occurrence from a historical and theoretical viewpoint but also to critically assess its applicability and effectiveness in contemporary legal scenarios, where the distance between the time of legislation and current application poses unique challenges. Through this multidimensional analysis, the research aims to provide a nuanced understanding of how spontaneous mental occurrence can function as a tool for legal interpretation and reform in the context of Islamic codified laws.

Results & Discussion:

The investigation into the role of spontaneous mental occurrence [Tabador] in the interpretation of legal-jurisprudential propositions reveals both complexities and significant insights. The research highlights that while spontaneous occurrence is a fundamental concept within Islamic jurisprudence, it encounters critical challenges when applied to the interpretation of laws in a contemporary context.
     Firstly, the study found that spontaneous occurrence often does not consistently bridge the gap between the historical meanings of words and their current interpretations. This inconsistency is primarily due to the dynamic nature of language and societal evolution, which can lead to a divergence between the original intents of the lawgiver and contemporary understandings. This divergence challenges the assertion that spontaneous occurrence can serve as a reliable tool for post-legislative interpretation and validation of Islamic codified laws.
     Moreover, the research critically addresses the logical relationship between spontaneous occurrence and truth. It underscores that while spontaneous occurrence may reveal a real meaning of a word, it does not necessarily equate to the discovery of the true link between the word and its meaning, which is a more comprehensive and deliberative process. This finding implies that spontaneous occurrence should be viewed as a sign of potential meaning rather than a definitive source of truth. The study points out the risk of conflating these two aspects, which can lead to misinterpretations and subsequent legal inaccuracies.
     Additionally, the results bring to light the problem of conjecture in spontaneous occurrence. The research elaborates on how jurists, while attempting to interpret legal texts based on their intuitive understanding, may rely on speculative and conjectural assumptions. This reliance is particularly problematic when these interpretations are used to bridge historical and contemporary meanings, often resulting in compounded speculation which lacks a solid evidential foundation. This aspect is crucial because it directly impacts the validity of jurisprudential rulings derived from such interpretations, which can subsequently influence the revision of laws.
     Another significant finding is the issue of logical circularity associated with spontaneous occurrence. The study explores how spontaneous occurrence can lead to a circular fallacy, where the interpretation of a term depends on an assumed understanding which itself is based on the interpretation. This circularity undermines the reliability of spontaneous occurrence as a method for legal interpretation. However, the research suggests that this problem can be addressed by distinguishing between different types of knowledge—intermediate and detailed—which can help mitigate the risk of circular reasoning.

The study concludes that while spontaneous mental occurrence holds a traditional and significant place in Islamic jurisprudential theory, its application in the contemporary interpretation of laws faces substantial challenges. These challenges stem from the inherent limitations of spontaneous occurrence, including its conjectural nature and susceptibility to logical circularities.
     Furthermore, the research articulates that spontaneous occurrence, by itself, does not always provide a reliable basis for interpreting the true meanings of legal texts, especially when these texts are subject to historical and cultural distances from their original context. This realization necessitates a more nuanced approach to legal interpretation, one that integrates spontaneous occurrence with other interpretative tools and methodologies, such as historical-semantic analysis and the critical use of modern legal theories.
     The findings underscore the necessity for Islamic jurists and lawmakers to reconsider the reliance on spontaneous occurrence as a sole indicator of legal meanings. Instead, a combined approach, employing both traditional and contemporary interpretative methods, is recommended to ensure that legal interpretations remain relevant and accurate in today's diverse and evolving societal contexts.
     Finally, the implications of this study are profound for the reform of Islamic codified laws. It provides a scholarly basis for questioning the current interpretative practices and suggests a pathway for reforming substantive laws, including civil and penal laws, which have often been critiqued for not aligning with international norms and human rights standards. By recognizing the limitations of spontaneous occurrence and advocating for a multidimensional interpretative strategy, this research contributes to the ongoing dialogue on legal reform in Islamic countries, encouraging a reevaluation of laws in light of both traditional wisdom and contemporary demands.

Venture capital investment involves infusing capital, providing managerial services, and planning for capital exit in young, innovative, and growing companies. These distinctive characteristics separate venture capital contracts from other financial agreements. Recognized globally by leaders in both governmental and economic spheres, venture capital investment has proven crucial for economic development and technological advancement. Noteworthy examples include the semiconductor industry and companies such as Microsoft and Facebook (Meta), which have substantially benefited from venture capital investments. For instance, M12, formerly known as Microsoft Ventures, serves as Microsoft’s venture capital firm, investing in startups and technological projects focused on artificial intelligence, software development, and cybersecurity. Similarly, Facebook has established an internal unit dedicated to venture capital investment in new technologies. These ventures highlight the pivotal role of venture capital contracts in driving economic progress within contemporary managerial and economic systems.
     However, the agreements and regulations underlying venture capital contracts can create potential conflicts between the rights of the capital recipient and the investor, as evidenced by studies within the US legal system. To mitigate such conflicts, there is a need to redefine the nature of these contracts in accordance with Islamic jurisprudence. In Iran, despite laws and regulations advocating for the support and development of venture capital investments, the legitimacy, validity, and nature of venture capital contracts under the Iranian legal system and Islamic jurisprudence have not been thoroughly explored. This research aims to fill this gap by refuting claims of illegitimacy, establishing the legitimacy of venture capital contracts, and demonstrating their compatibility with Islamic participation agreements while clarifying their incompatibility with other nominate contracts.

The central research question of this study is: How can the nature of venture capital contracts be reinterpreted within the framework of Islamic jurisprudence to address claims of their speculative and irrational nature, thereby establishing their legitimacy and validity in both Islamic and Iranian legal systems?

The hypothesis driving this research posits that venture capital contracts, when scrutinized under Islamic jurisprudence, can be deemed legitimate and valid. This legitimacy hinges on demonstrating that these contracts align with the principles of Islamic finance and jurisprudence, particularly through the framework of participation agreements. The study hypothesizes that the speculative and irrational concerns associated with venture capital contracts can be addressed by redefining their nature within the Islamic legal context, thus proving their compatibility with the principles of trade and profit-sharing recognized in Islamic law.

This research employs a library-documentary method for data collection and a descriptive-analytical approach for data analysis. The study involves deducing, interpreting, and reasoning findings from documents, with extensive references to the texts and opinions of Islamic jurists and legal scholars. The methodological framework includes:     Reviewing existing literature on venture capital contracts in both Western and Islamic legal contexts.
     Analyzing the principles of Islamic jurisprudence to understand the legitimacy of venture capital contracts.
     Examining the compatibility of venture capital contracts with various nominate contracts in Islamic jurisprudence, such as sale, partnership, reward, and participation agreements.
     Utilizing the principles of the Qur'an, specifically the general verse "Allah has permitted trade" (Surah Al-Baqarah - 275), the rule of the Muslim market, and the principle of legitimacy to argue for the validity of venture capital contracts.

The study finds that venture capital contracts, despite their modern inception, can be aligned with the principles of Islamic jurisprudence, particularly through the lens of participation agreements. The key results and discussions include:     Legitimacy in Islamic Jurisprudence: The venture capital contract is legitimized by the principle of the validity of contracts and the Qur'anic verse permitting trade. This legitimacy is further supported by the rule of the Muslim market and the overarching principle of legitimacy in Islamic law.
     Compatibility with Nominate Contracts: The venture capital contract shares significant similarities with the participation agreement in Islamic jurisprudence. Both contracts involve the mixing of assets, shared ownership, and management of these assets according to agreed terms. The division of profits and losses based on co-owned shares in both contracts further establishes this compatibility.
     Addressing Hazardous and Irrational Claims

The speculative nature of venture capital investments, while inherent to their high-risk, high-reward paradigm, can be rationalized within Islamic jurisprudence by emphasizing the profit-sharing and risk-bearing principles foundational to Islamic finance.
     Economic and Technological Impact: By legitimizing venture capital contracts within the Islamic legal framework, the study underscores their potential in fostering economic development and technological innovation, as evidenced by successful global examples.

This research concludes that venture capital contracts, while modern, can be reconciled with the principles of Islamic jurisprudence, particularly through the framework of participation agreements. By proving their legitimacy based on Islamic legal principles, the study establishes their validity within the Iranian legal system. The key findings are:     Venture capital contracts are legitimate and valid under Islamic jurisprudence, supported by the Qur'anic principles of trade and the rule of the Muslim market [Souq al-Muslimeen].
     These contracts align closely with the participation agreement in Islamic jurisprudence, sharing critical elements such as asset mixing, shared ownership, and profit-loss distribution.
     Addressing the speculative and irrational concerns associated with venture capital contracts can be achieved by emphasizing their alignment with the risk-sharing principles of Islamic finance.
     The research highlights the significant role of venture capital contracts in economic and technological advancement, advocating for their broader acceptance and integration within Islamic legal systems.
     By establishing the legitimacy and redefining the nature of venture capital contracts within Islamic jurisprudence, this study paves the way for their acceptance and utilization in fostering economic growth and innovation, particularly within Islamic countries like Iran.

The principle of benevolence, or Ehsan, is a foundational concept in Islamic jurisprudence, which emphasizes altruism, sacrifice, and service to others. Given the social nature of human beings, there is a continuous need for individuals to integrate into the community and engage in mutual assistance. However, this integration often leads to conflicts of interest and potential rights violations due to inherent traits like greed and the pursuit of power. To mitigate such conflicts, laws and principles, including civil liability, are essential in ensuring justice and protecting individuals' rights. Civil liability, or non-consensual liability, holds individuals accountable for any harm they cause to others, requiring them to compensate for the loss.
     Contrary to the strict application of civil liability, Islamic jurisprudence introduces the principle of benevolence. This principle acknowledges that individuals driven by altruism may inadvertently cause harm while attempting to benefit others. In such scenarios, the primary ruling of non-consensual liability is overlooked, and the principle of benevolence exempts the well-intentioned individual from liability. The increasing complexity of modern societal needs underscores the importance of benevolence and mutual assistance. Promoting a culture of benevolence is vital for educational systems and institutions, and Islamic law has long advocated for this through significant principles like Ehsan.
     This study aims to provide a comprehensive examination of the principle of benevolence from an educational perspective within Islamic jurisprudence. It seeks to identify the educational criteria and standards that define the value of benevolent acts and document their educational reflections in human relationships as perceived by both Western and Islamic scholars. The study also explores the educational applications and implications of Ehsan, highlighting the roles of educational institutions and media in fostering a culture of benevolence.

The central research question guiding this study is: How can the principle of benevolence (Ehsan) be effectively integrated into educational systems to promote a culture of altruism and mutual assistance in contemporary society?
     To address this overarching question, the study will explore several subsidiary questions, including:     What are the jurisprudential foundations of the principle of benevolence in Islamic law?
     How do educational theories and practices in Islamic jurisprudence define and value acts of benevolence?
     What are the similarities and differences in the conceptualization of benevolence between Islamic and Western educational perspectives?
     How can educational institutions, media, and cyberspace contribute to promoting benevolence among different societal segments?

The hypothesis underpinning this research posits that integrating the principle of benevolence into educational systems can significantly enhance social cohesion and mutual assistance. Specifically, the hypothesis can be broken down as follows:     The principle of benevolence, rooted in Islamic jurisprudence, offers a robust framework for fostering altruistic behavior and social responsibility.
     Educational institutions that incorporate the principles of Ehsan into their curricula and culture can effectively instill values of altruism, service, and community engagement in students.
     Media and cyberspace, when utilized strategically, can amplify the promotion of benevolence and reach a broader audience, thereby reinforcing these values across different societal segments.

The study employs a multi-disciplinary approach, combining jurisprudential analysis with educational theory and practical applications. The methodology involves several key components:     Jurisprudential Analysis: A detailed examination of Islamic legal texts and scholarly interpretations to elucidate the principle of benevolence.
     Comparative analysis with Western legal and educational theories to highlight convergences and divergences.
     Educational Theory: Exploration of educational theories and principles that align with the concept of benevolence.
     Identification of criteria and standards used to evaluate the educational value of benevolent acts.
     Examination of media campaigns and cyberspace initiatives that have promoted altruism and mutual assistance.
     Interviews and Surveys: Conducting interviews with scholars, educators, and students to gather insights into the practical applications of Ehsan in education.
     Surveys to assess the impact of benevolence-focused educational programs and media campaigns on students and the general public.
     Documentary Analysis: Review of educational curricula, media content, and cyberspace materials to evaluate how benevolence is portrayed and promoted.
     The framework for this study is built upon the integration of these methodologies, providing a comprehensive understanding of the principle of benevolence from both jurisprudential and educational perspectives. This approach allows for a thorough investigation of how Ehsan can be operationalized in contemporary educational systems to foster a culture of altruism and mutual assistance.
     In summary, the study aims to bridge the gap between jurisprudential principles and educational practices, offering insights into how the principle of benevolence can be effectively integrated into modern educational frameworks. By doing so, it seeks to contribute to the development of a more cohesive and supportive society where mutual assistance and altruism are highly valued and actively promoted.

The investigation into the principle of benevolence (Ehsan) from an educational perspective reveals several key findings that underscore its significance and practical applications in contemporary society. These findings demonstrate the profound impact of integrating benevolence into educational frameworks and the broader implications for fostering a culture of altruism and mutual assistance.
     Key Findings

     Intrinsic Value of Benevolence: The study confirms that benevolence holds intrinsic value, deeply rooted in both Islamic jurisprudence and universal ethical principles. This intrinsic value is reflected in the positive moral and spiritual outcomes of benevolent actions, which are emphasized in numerous Quranic verses and Hadiths. The principle of benevolence promotes ethical conduct and moral integrity, which are essential components of a holistic educational system.
     Altruism and Educational Outcomes: Altruism, as a core component of benevolence, significantly enhances educational outcomes. The presence of altruistic values in educational settings fosters a sense of community, empathy, and social responsibility among students. This is crucial for developing well-rounded individuals who are not only academically proficient but also socially conscious and morally responsible.
     Worldly and Hereafter Benefits: The dual aspects of benevolence—worldly benefits and advantageous effects in the hereafter—provide a comprehensive framework for understanding its importance. In the worldly context, benevolent actions contribute to social cohesion, mutual support, and overall well-being. The promise of rewards in the hereafter further incentivizes individuals to engage in acts of kindness and service, reinforcing the principle's significance from a spiritual perspective.
     Addressing Material and Spiritual Needs: Benevolence encompasses addressing both material and spiritual needs. This dual focus ensures that individuals receive holistic support, which is vital for their overall development. Educational programs that incorporate benevolence can address various dimensions of student needs, promoting a balanced and comprehensive approach to education.
     Negative and Irrational Individualism: The research highlights a concerning trend of negative and irrational individualism among students in educational centers. This individualism, driven by self-interest and personal gain, is contrary to the principles of benevolence and altruism. Addressing this issue requires a concerted effort to cultivate a culture of generosity, cooperation, and mutual support within educational institutions.
     Role of Media and Cyberspace: The study underscores the pivotal role of media and cyberspace in promoting benevolence. These platforms provide opportunities for the public to engage with and support benevolent initiatives. Educational campaigns leveraging media and cyberspace can reach a wider audience, effectively disseminating the values of altruism and service.
Discussion The principle of benevolence, when integrated into educational systems, offers a transformative approach to developing socially responsible and morally upright individuals. This integration requires a multifaceted strategy that includes curriculum design, educational activities, and the use of media and cyberspace.
     Curriculum Design: Incorporating benevolence into the curriculum involves designing educational programs that emphasize ethical values, social responsibility, and community service. Courses and activities that promote altruism, empathy, and mutual support can foster a positive educational environment conducive to holistic development.
     Educational Activities: Engaging students in charitable activities and community service projects is crucial for practical learning. These activities provide hands-on experience in applying benevolent principles, allowing students to witness the tangible impact of their actions on the community. Educational institutions should create opportunities for students to participate in such initiatives, reinforcing the importance of altruism and service.
     Media and Cyberspace: Leveraging media and cyberspace to promote benevolence can significantly enhance outreach and engagement. Educational campaigns and social media initiatives that highlight stories of benevolence and service can inspire others to follow suit. These platforms can also facilitate discussions and raise awareness about the importance of altruism, creating a supportive community that values and practices benevolence.

Promoting a culture of benevolence and service is not only an educational necessity but also a moral imperative. Islamic law, with its emphasis on the principle of benevolence, provides a robust framework for fostering altruism and mutual assistance. This principle, deeply rooted in ethical and spiritual values, offers significant educational benefits, contributing to the development of well-rounded, socially responsible individuals.
     Benevolence encompasses both the prevention of harm and the provision of benefit, reflecting a comprehensive approach to human relationships. The educational criteria for valuing benevolence—intrinsic value, altruism, worldly benefits, and hereafter rewards—highlight its multifaceted significance. Addressing both material and spiritual needs ensures holistic support for individuals, promoting balanced development.
     The study's findings reveal a concerning trend of negative individualism among students, underscoring the need for educational systems to cultivate a culture of generosity and cooperation. This can be achieved through curriculum design, educational activities, and leveraging media and cyberspace to promote benevolence.
     The principle of benevolence as an educational rule implies that the trainee's selectivity and goodwill are paramount. Acts of benevolence should stem from innate and human nature, free from external compulsion. This principle's implications for educational planning and curriculum design emphasize the scope of good deeds and the necessity of aligning educational practices with human nature.
     In conclusion, integrating the principle of benevolence into educational systems offers a transformative approach to fostering a culture of altruism and mutual assistance. By promoting ethical values, social responsibility, and community service, educational institutions can develop individuals who are not only academically proficient but also morally upright and socially conscious. This holistic approach ensures that education contributes to the overall well-being of society, creating a more cohesive and supportive community where mutual assistance and altruism are highly valued and actively practiced.

The paper addresses the tension between traditional Islamic jurisprudence and contemporary legal practices concerning the use of documents as evidence. Traditionally, Islamic law has relied on methods such as the judge's knowledge, evidence [Bayyinah], confession, oath, and casting lots to prove claims. However, with the increasing reliance on official documents in modern legal systems, including those in Islamic countries, a new approach has emerged that often places documents above other forms of evidence. This article seeks to explore the validity of documents, both ordinary and official, within the context of Islamic law, particularly through the lens of hadith evidence.

The central research question explored in this article is: "To what extent can documents, both official and ordinary, be considered valid evidence in Islamic law, particularly in cases of conflict with traditional forms of proof such as Bayyinah and confession?" This question is vital for bridging the gap between contemporary legal practices and traditional Islamic jurisprudence.

The hypothesis proposed in the article is that presumptive documents do not constitute independent and authoritative evidence when compared to traditional methods such as knowledge, Bayyinah, and confession, according to hadith evidence. This hypothesis is founded on the Islamic principle derived from the Quran, specifically Surah Yunus, verses 36 and 59, which highlight the non-validity of presumption and conjecture in judicial matters. Therefore, unless explicit hadith evidence supports the validity of documents, their authority remains questionable.

The methodology involves Islamic ijtihad (jurisprudential reasoning) through an extensive review of library resources, including classical and contemporary works of Islamic jurists and legal scholars. The framework of the study systematically addresses several key aspects:     Conceptual Analysis of Documentation:     Definition and significance of documents in modern legal systems.
     Traditional Islamic views on written statements and their evidentiary value.
     Examination of Quranic and Hadith Evidences:     Analysis of Quranic verses pertinent to documentation and presumption.
     Scrutiny of hadiths that may support or refute the validity of documents as evidence.
     Comparison of Contemporary Legal Practices and Islamic Jurisprudence:     Exploration of the contemporary legal framework's reliance on documentation versus traditional Islamic evidentiary methods.
     Evaluation of Jurisprudential Opinions:     Review of various juristic opinions, highlighting the majority view against the independent validity of documents.
     Examination of minority opinions supporting the use of documentation based on principles like maintaining order and eliminating hardship.
     Critical Analysis of Practical Implications:     Discussion on the practical implications of adopting documentation as valid evidence, including potential benefits such as reduced judicial backlog and avoidance of false testimony.

The analysis of Islamic jurisprudential texts and hadith evidence reveals a predominant view among Islamic jurists that presumptive documents do not hold validity as independent evidence. The primary principle within Islamic law is the invalidity of presumptions. Despite some jurists acknowledging the use of documents as proof, it remains unclear whether this acceptance is due to the conclusive knowledge they provide or an absolute statement inclusive of presumptive documents.
     The article examines several hadiths that discuss the validity of documents. Two narrations from Abdullah ibn Sanan and Omar ibn Yazid were scrutinized but were insufficient to establish documents as valid proof. Conversely, narrations from Abi Khadija, Hussein ibn Saeed, Sa'd ibn Hisham, and Sakouni were considered. Among these, the narrations from Abi Khadija, the second narration from Sakouni, and Sa'd ibn Hisham did not provide clear or comprehensive evidence to invalidate the document's credibility. However, the narrations from Hussein ibn Saeed and the second narration from Sakouni were explicit and definitive, indicating that documents—whether ordinary or official—do not hold validity if they are presumptive.
     The findings reinforce that the accepted methods of proof in Islamic law are limited to evidence [Bayyinah], testimony, confession, and oath. Other methods, including documents, do not hold the same status. If documents were inherently considered valid like Bayyinah and oath, they would have been explicitly mentioned and delineated within Islamic legal texts, similar to how the boundaries and conflicts of Bayyinah and oath are addressed.

The conclusion drawn from the analysis is that most Islamic jurists do not regard presumptive documents and writings as valid forms of evidence due to the primary principle of the invalidity of presumptions. Although there are references to documents as proof within juristic discussions, it remains ambiguous whether this acknowledgment is due to the conclusive knowledge they provide or an absolute acceptance that includes presumptive documents. The hadith evidence analyzed supports the view that documents, unless providing conclusive knowledge, do not hold validity as independent judicial evidence. Thus, traditional methods of proof such as Bayyinah, testimony, confession, and oath remain the primary and most reliable means within Islamic jurisprudence.

The concept of Islamic banking is grounded in principles that emphasize rights, justice, and public welfare, aiming to manifest human ethics in financial transactions. Unlike conventional banking, Islamic banking prohibits unethical practices such as usury (Riba), risk/uncertainty (Gharar), and trading in forbidden goods. This ethical framework mandates that profits and losses in economic activities must be shared among capital, labor, and management, fostering a fairer financial ecosystem. However, the practical implementation of these principles often encounters challenges due to governance issues, lack of transparency, and bureaucratic inefficiencies.
     Blockchain technology, with its decentralized, transparent, and secure nature, presents an opportunity to address these challenges. By facilitating peer-to-peer transactions without the need for intermediaries, blockchain can potentially enhance the efficiency and ethical compliance of Islamic banking. This article examines the role of blockchain in realizing the ideals of Islamic banking, with a particular focus on its compatibility with the constitutional framework of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The primary research question of this study is: "what is the capability of blockchain in realizing true Islamic banking?" This question addresses the potential of blockchain technology to align with and enhance the principles of Islamic banking, particularly within the legal and ethical confines of the Iranian constitutional framework. The study seeks to explore whether blockchain can offer a viable solution to the challenges faced by Islamic banking, such as governance issues, lack of transparency, and adherence to Sharia principles.

The research hypothesis posits that blockchain technology is not only compatible with the foundational principles of Islamic banking but also significantly aids in achieving its goals. The hypothesis is based on the premise that blockchain’s inherent characteristics—decentralization, transparency, and security—can enhance the ethical and operational aspects of Islamic banking. Specifically, the hypothesis suggests that blockchain can:     Facilitate Sharia-compliant transactions by ensuring transparency and accountability.
     Reduce operational costs and risks by eliminating intermediaries.
     Enhance trust and credibility in Islamic financial institutions.
     Address governance issues through a decentralized and democratic framework.

This study employs a multifaceted methodological approach, incorporating doctrinal, legal, economic, and comparative analyses to investigate the role of blockchain in Islamic banking. The research methodology is structured as follows:     Doctrinal Analysis: This involves a detailed examination of Islamic legal principles related to banking and finance, focusing on the ethical and jurisprudential underpinnings of Islamic banking.
     Legal Analysis: This component analyzes the legal framework governing Islamic banking in Iran, including constitutional provisions and regulatory guidelines. The study assesses how blockchain technology can be integrated into this framework to support Sharia-compliant financial practices.
     Economic Analysis: The economic implications of adopting blockchain in Islamic banking are examined, particularly in terms of cost efficiency, risk management, and financial inclusion. The analysis considers the potential impact on various stakeholders, including banks, customers, and regulators.
     Comparative Analysis: This involves a comparative study of three governance models in banking: traditional bureaucracy, private blockchain, and public blockchain. The comparative framework evaluates the effectiveness of each model in terms of transparency, efficiency, and adherence to ethical standards.
     Framework Application: The application of the research methodology is guided by the following steps:     Comparative Evaluation: The three governance models—traditional bureaucracy, private blockchain, and public blockchain—are evaluated against a set of ethical and operational criteria. This evaluation identifies the strengths and weaknesses of each model in supporting the goals of Islamic banking.
     Policy Recommendations: Based on the findings, the study offers policy recommendations for regulators and financial institutions on how to leverage blockchain technology to enhance the ethical and operational aspects of Islamic banking.
     By adopting this comprehensive methodological framework, the study aims to provide a detailed and nuanced understanding of the role of blockchain in Islamic banking, with a particular focus on the context of Iran.

The investigation into the role of blockchain technology in realizing Islamic banking within the framework of the Islamic Republic of Iran has yielded several key findings. First and foremost, blockchain’s alignment with Sharia and ethical principles is evident in its foundational characteristics. The transparency, immutability, and decentralized nature of blockchain ensure that transactions can be conducted in a manner that upholds justice and fairness, fundamental tenets of Islamic finance.
     Compatibility with Sharia Principles: The results indicate that blockchain technology does not inherently contradict Sharia financial principles. Smart contracts, which are self-executing contracts with the terms directly written into code, can be designed to comply with Sharia rules. For instance, the prohibition of usury [Riba] can be enforced by coding interest-free transaction terms. Similarly, the avoidance of risk [Gharar] can be ensured through transparent and pre-defined contract conditions.
     Challenges and Solutions: One significant challenge identified is the anonymity feature inherent in public blockchain networks. While anonymity can protect user privacy, it also poses risks related to organized crime and tax evasion. Advanced solutions from other countries, such as Know Your Customer (KYC) protocols, can be implemented to mitigate these risks. KYC processes are essential to verify user identities and ensure that blockchain applications in Islamic banking remain secure and ethical.
     Advantages Over Conventional Banking: Blockchain technology offers several advantages over traditional banking practices, particularly in addressing the goals outlined in the Iranian Constitution. These advantages include:     Rights and Justice: Blockchain ensures transparent and tamper-proof records of transactions, promoting fairness and reducing opportunities for corruption. This aligns with the constitutional values of justice and equity.
     Cooperation and Qard al-Hasan: Blockchain facilitates the expansion of cooperative financial practices, such as interest- free loans [Qard al-Hasan]. Smart contracts can automate the management and distribution of these loans, ensuring compliance with Sharia principles and enhancing trust among participants.
     Preventing Corruption and Collusion: The immutable nature of blockchain records makes it difficult to alter transaction histories, thereby preventing corruption and collusion. This characteristic is vital for maintaining a healthy and stable economy, crucial for addressing economic crises like inflation and injustice.
     Framework for Implementation: To harness these benefits, it is crucial to establish a regulatory framework that combines the decentralized advantages of blockchain with necessary institutional oversight. This framework should incorporate identity verification mechanisms, compliance with Sharia law, and guidelines for ethical conduct in financial transactions.

The research concludes that blockchain technology is compatible with the ethical and Sharia principles underlying Islamic banking. The implementation of blockchain can address many of the current shortcomings in conventional banking systems, such as corruption, lack of transparency, and inefficiency, which have hindered the full realization of Islamic banking principles.
     Blockchain’s decentralized and transparent nature aligns well with the goals of Islamic finance, ensuring justice, fairness, and ethical conduct. However, to fully integrate blockchain into Islamic banking, it is essential to address the challenge of anonymity through robust KYC protocols and institutional regulations. This will prevent misuse and ensure that blockchain-based Islamic banking systems are secure and compliant with both ethical standards and Sharia law.
     Moreover, blockchain can play a significant role in transforming traditional banking roles, potentially rendering them obsolete in the coming decades. The technology’s ability to provide direct peer-to-peer financial services without intermediaries can reduce costs, increase efficiency, and enhance trust in the financial system.
     In conclusion, while blockchain presents numerous benefits for Islamic banking, its successful implementation requires a balanced approach that leverages its technological advantages while ensuring compliance with ethical and legal standards.

The rapid expansion of commercial advertising, especially through television, has created significant societal and cultural impacts. The unique attributes of television—its vast reach, diverse audience, and combination of visual and auditory stimuli—make it an exceptionally potent medium. This influence, however, is a double-edged sword, capable of both positive and negative effects. Television advertising, driven by modern nihilism and neoliberal ideologies, often oversteps reasonable boundaries, potentially causing cultural harm. The definition of culture, as articulated by Taylor, includes an array of elements such as language, religion, art, law, and morality, all of which can be affected by television commercials.
     Television advertisements interact intimately with public culture and societal norms, leading to significant legal challenges. Consequently, nations worldwide have instituted laws to regulate television advertising, curbing misleading advertisements and other violations even within free-market economies. In Iran, where cultural values are deeply rooted and the rule of law is paramount, it is crucial to scrutinize the legal boundaries of television advertising to mitigate its potentially anti-cultural impacts.
     This research investigates the legal frameworks that address the cultural impacts of television advertising in Iran. It aims to delineate the existing regulations and assess the effectiveness of these legal norms in safeguarding Iranian cultural values against the detrimental effects of commercial advertising.

The main question of this study is: "What are the legal requirements for addressing the anti-cultural effects of television advertising in the Iranian legal system?"
     This question arises from the need to understand how existing laws in Iran regulate television advertising to protect cultural values and societal norms. It seeks to explore the adequacy of these regulations in countering the cultural degradation caused by commercial advertising.

The central hypothesis of this study posits that despite the existence of numerous legal norms aimed at curbing the anti-cultural effects of television advertising, these objectives have not been fully realized. The hypothesis suggests that the current legal norms are fragmented and inadequately enforced, failing to effectively mitigate the cultural harms posed by television commercials.
     Unlike prior research, which has predominantly focused on the ethical and jurisprudential aspects of television advertising, this study emphasizes the legal norms governing the cultural impacts of television advertising. It hypothesizes that a more consolidated and refined legal framework is necessary for effectively regulating the cultural consequences of television advertising in Iran.

This study adopts a qualitative and practical approach, primarily utilizing library-based research methods. The methodology involves a comprehensive analysis of existing legal documents, regulations, and policies that govern television advertising in Iran. The research framework is structured as follows:     Literature Review: The literature review encompasses a thorough examination of previous studies on the cultural impacts of television advertising. This includes both Iranian and international perspectives, providing a comparative analysis of different regulatory approaches. The review highlights gaps in the existing literature, particularly the lack of focus on the legal aspects of cultural regulation in television advertising.
     Legal Analysis: The legal analysis involves scrutinizing the Iranian legal framework, including the constitution, statutory laws, and regulations related to television advertising. This analysis aims to identify the specific legal provisions that address the cultural impacts of television advertising and evaluate their effectiveness.
     Case Studies: Case studies of specific television advertisements in Iran are examined to illustrate the practical application of the legal norms. These case studies help to understand how current regulations are enforced and identify any discrepancies or shortcomings in their implementation.
     Interviews with Legal Experts: Interviews with legal experts, policymakers, and practitioners in the field of media law are conducted to gain insights into the practical challenges and potential solutions for regulating the cultural impacts of television advertising. These interviews provide valuable perspectives on the effectiveness of existing legal norms and suggest areas for improvement.
     Comparative Analysis: A comparative analysis is conducted to examine how other countries regulate the cultural impacts of television advertising. This analysis provides insights into best practices and potential strategies that could be adopted in the Iranian context.
     Synthesis and Recommendations: The final stage of the methodology involves synthesizing the findings from the literature review, legal analysis, case studies, interviews, and comparative analysis. Based on this synthesis, recommendations are made for refining and consolidating the legal framework governing television advertising in Iran. These recommendations aim to enhance the effectiveness of legal norms in protecting cultural values against the negative impacts of commercial advertising.

Results & Discussion

The study has meticulously analyzed the Iranian legal framework concerning television advertising and its cultural impacts. The research reveals that despite the establishment of extensive legal norms aimed at preventing the anti-cultural effects of television commercials, these norms have not fully achieved their intended objectives. The study identifies several critical findings

     Comprehensive Legal Norms: Over the past four decades, Iran has developed a comprehensive set of legal norms at three levels—constitutional, ordinary laws, and specific regulations of the IRIB. These norms cover a wide array of areas, including economic distribution and consumption, women and family, children, ethics, social customs, audience and consumer rights, religious and jurisprudential rules, Persian language and literature, domestic and foreign policy, national independence, patriotic values, and social justice.
     Persistent Anti-Cultural Effects: Despite these extensive regulations, television commercials in Iran continue to exhibit anti-cultural and destructive elements. Issues such as consumerism, unrealistic lifestyles, feelings of inferiority, extravagance, fashion obsession, instrumental use of women and children, and reinforcement of social inequalities remain prevalent in commercial advertisements.
     Legislative Ambiguity and Enforcement Gaps: The study finds that the primary root of these problems is not the absence of legal norms but rather the ambiguity and lack of thoroughness in existing laws. This results in ineffective enforcement and compliance. The lack of clear oversight and enforcement mechanisms further exacerbates the situation, leading to widespread violations of legal norms in television advertising.
     Institutional Conflicts and Inefficiencies: The consolidation of legislative, executive, oversight, criminalization, and judicial roles within the General Directorate of Commerce of IRIB has led to significant issues. These include conflicts of interest, lack of independence, inefficiency, and lack of accountability. Such institutional arrangements hinder the proper enforcement of legal norms and prevent the establishment of effective oversight and judicial procedures.
     The discussion focuses on the implications of these findings and explores potential solutions to address the identified issues. Key points include:     Need for Legislative Clarity and Precision: The study underscores the need for clearer and more precise legislative norms to effectively regulate television advertising. Laws should be specific, unambiguous, and comprehensive, covering all aspects of commercial advertising that could potentially harm cultural values.
     Enhanced Oversight and Enforcement Mechanisms: Effective enforcement of legal norms requires robust oversight mechanisms. Independent regulatory bodies, free from conflicts of interest, should be established to monitor and enforce compliance with advertising regulations. These bodies should have the authority to impose penalties and take corrective actions against violators.
     Institutional Reforms: The study advocates for institutional reforms to address the conflicts of interest and inefficiencies within the IRIB. Separating the legislative, executive, and judicial roles related to television advertising can help ensure greater transparency, accountability, and effectiveness in regulatory processes.
     Public Awareness and Education: Raising public awareness about the cultural impacts of television advertising is crucial. Educational campaigns can help audiences recognize and critically evaluate the content of advertisements, reducing their susceptibility to harmful influences.
     International Best Practices: The study suggests looking at international best practices in regulating television advertising. Comparative analysis with other countries can provide valuable insights and strategies that could be adapted to the Iranian context, enhancing the effectiveness of local regulations.
     Holistic Cultural Policies: Addressing the anti-cultural effects of television advertising requires a holistic approach. Cultural policies should integrate various aspects of society, including media regulation, education, and public policy, to create a cohesive framework that supports cultural preservation and promotes positive values.
 Conclusion

The findings of this study highlight the Iranian legal system's attention to regulating the cultural impacts of television advertising. However, the persistence of anti-cultural elements in commercials indicates significant gaps in the enforcement and effectiveness of these regulations. The study concludes that:     The existing legal norms, while comprehensive, lack the clarity and thoroughness needed for effective enforcement.
     Institutional arrangements within the IRIB contribute to conflicts of interest, inefficiency, and lack of accountability, hindering proper regulation of television advertising.
     Effective solutions require legislative reforms to clarify and strengthen legal norms, the establishment of independent oversight bodies, and institutional reforms to ensure transparency and accountability.
     Public awareness and education, coupled with international best practices, can enhance the regulatory framework and mitigate the cultural harms of television advertising.
     This research underscores the need for a multi-faceted approach to address the anti-cultural effects of television advertising in Iran, combining legislative, institutional, and public policy reforms to protect cultural values and public order.

In the realm of contractual disputes where contractual terms are ambiguous or disputed, traditional legal principles often encounter limitations in definitively characterizing the nature of agreements. This challenge prompts the exploration of alternative methodologies rooted in jurisprudential rules and practical principles, particularly within the framework of Islamic jurisprudence [Usul ul-Fiqh]. These principles serve to navigate uncertainties by offering interpretive guidelines in instances where contractual intentions are obscure or contested. The application of these principles becomes pivotal when contractual parties or judicial authorities encounter difficulty in precisely delineating the type of contract under consideration.

This study addresses the fundamental inquiry: To what extent can practical principles and jurisprudential rules effectively determine the classification of contracts in the absence of clear contractual terms or in cases of contractual dispute?

The hypothesis posits that practical principles and jurisprudential rules provide a viable framework for resolving contractual ambiguities and disputes by offering interpretive guidance, albeit without the capacity to definitively establish the underlying intentions of contracting parties.

The research methodology employed in this study combines descriptive-analytical and doctrinal approaches. Drawing from extensive library resources encompassing Islamic juristic literature and legal scholarship, the study examines case studies and theoretical analyses to substantiate its findings. The doctrinal method is particularly employed to elucidate the theoretical underpinnings of practical principles and jurisprudential rules in contract law, while the descriptive-analytical approach facilitates an empirical exploration of their application in resolving contractual disputes.
     This research assumes that while practical principles and jurisprudential rules are indispensable tools in legal reasoning, they do not serve as determinants of objective reality but rather as interpretive aids aimed at resolving ambiguity. By analyzing their application in various contractual scenarios, the study seeks to establish the circumstances under which these principles can effectively guide judicial decisions and contractual classifications.

The application of practical principles and jurisprudential rules in resolving contractual disputes yields nuanced outcomes that underscore their interpretive and guiding roles in Islamic legal contexts. In scenarios where conventional legal methodologies fail to definitively classify contracts, practical principles offer a structured framework for adjudication. For instance, disputes concerning the classification of contracts as sales versus gifts often hinge on the application of oaths and legal principles related to ownership and possession.
     Central to the discussion is the principle of 'claimant and denier' in Islamic jurisprudence, which dictates that the party making a positive claim bears the burden of proof. This principle becomes pivotal in disputes where one party asserts a contract as a sale while another contends it as a gift. Through judicial examination and application of practical principles, such as those derived from Usul ul-Fiqh, judges can navigate these complexities by evaluating testimonies and contextualizing legal principles to ascertain the contractual nature.
     Moreover, in cases involving leases versus free loans, the principle of respecting property rights and the benefits derived from possessions informs judicial decisions. Here, the possessor's claim to use the property free of charge versus the owner's assertion of a lease agreement highlights the role of practical principles in adjudicating disputes where contractual terms are ambiguous or hotly contested.

In conclusion, the efficacy of practical principles and jurisprudential rules in determining the classification of contracts in Islamic law is evident in their capacity to resolve disputes where contractual intentions are obscure or disputed. While these principles do not provide absolute clarity on the objective reality of contractual arrangements, they serve as indispensable tools for judges and legal scholars in interpreting and applying Islamic legal doctrines.
     The study affirms that when traditional methods fail to definitively characterize a contract, practical principles offer a viable alternative for judicial resolution. By leveraging principles rooted in Islamic jurisprudence, judges can navigate complex disputes involving claims of ownership, transfers of property, and contractual obligations. This approach ensures that disputes are adjudicated with due consideration to both legal precedents and the ethical foundations of Islamic law.
     Furthermore, the research underscores the importance of contextual analysis and doctrinal interpretation in applying practical principles effectively. By integrating insights from Islamic legal scholarship and jurisprudential analysis, this study contributes to a deeper understanding of how practical principles can be harnessed to uphold justice and equity in contractual disputes within Islamic legal frameworks.
     Future research in this area could explore case studies across different jurisdictions or delve deeper into specific doctrinal principles to further refine our understanding of their application in contemporary legal contexts. Ultimately, the exploration of practical principles and jurisprudential rules enriches legal discourse by offering nuanced solutions to complex contractual disputes under Islamic law.

The legal and economic implications of bankruptcy are profound, influencing not only the financial health of individuals and businesses but also the stability and fairness of the broader economic system. The concept of bankruptcy, as understood in contemporary Iranian law, is a construct with origins that can be traced back to the enactment of the Iranian Commercial Code of 1932. This legislation borrowed significantly from the Napoleonic Code, incorporating principles aimed at ensuring equal treatment of creditors. The contemporary Iranian legal framework for bankruptcy primarily focuses on preventing preferential treatment among creditors and safeguarding the collective interests of all creditors against unilateral actions by the debtor.
     However, the notion of bankruptcy is not entirely novel within the Iranian context. Traditional Islamic jurisprudence has long recognized a similar concept under the term insolvency/indigence [Iflas]. Within Islamic law, bankruptcy is considered one of the six causes of incapacity/ interdiction (Hajr), wherein the insolvent individual [Mofles] is restricted from disposing of their property. This jurisprudential approach mirrors the principles found in modern bankruptcy laws, emphasizing the prohibition of preferential treatment and ensuring equitable distribution among creditors. The central inquiry of this research is to ascertain whether the Islamic jurisprudential concept of Insolvency can be equated with the legal construct of bankruptcy, facilitating a meaningful comparative analysis.

The primary research question addressed in this study is: To what extent do the concepts of "bankruptcy" in contemporary Iranian law and "Insolvency" in Islamic jurisprudence correspond to one another? Specifically, the research seeks to determine whether these two concepts can be considered equivalent, thereby allowing for a comparative analysis of their respective frameworks, or if there are fundamental differences that distinguish them.

The research hypothesis posits that the concepts of insolvency in Islamic jurisprudence and bankruptcy in modern legal systems, while originating from different legal traditions, share substantial similarities in their fundamental principles and objectives. These similarities may provide a basis for comparative analysis and potential integration or harmonization of these legal concepts within the context of Iranian commercial law. The hypothesis further suggests that understanding these similarities and differences can lead to more effective and equitable bankruptcy regulations that are consistent with both Islamic jurisprudence and contemporary legal standards.

The research employs an analytical-descriptive doctrinal method, a common approach in the study of Islamic humanities. This methodology involves a detailed analysis of legal texts, jurisprudential opinions, and statutory provisions, drawing upon a rich body of Islamic legal library resources. The study's scope is primarily focused on Shia jurisprudence and Iranian law, with limited reference to Sunni jurisprudence and foreign legal systems, particularly those following common law traditions.

The comparative analysis of the concepts of bankruptcy in contemporary Iranian law and Insolvency in Islamic jurisprudence reveals several significant findings. First and foremost, Shia jurisprudence does not distinguish between merchants and non-merchants regarding the applicability of bankruptcy rules. This inclusive approach underscores a fundamental principle of equality among creditors, ensuring that all creditors have proportional access to the debtor's assets, regardless of the debtor's status as a merchant or non-merchant.
     In Iranian law, however, the bankruptcy provisions of the Iranian Commercial Code are currently limited to merchants. This restriction creates a disparity in creditor protection, favoring those who deal with merchants over those who transact with non-merchants. The analysis highlights that creditor of non-merchants are exposed to higher risks of non-recovery of their claims. This risk disparity stems from the fact that non-merchant debtors are not subject to the same stringent regulations and oversight as merchant debtors, allowing non-merchants to potentially evade their financial obligations more easily.
     From the perspective of creditor prioritization, both Shia jurisprudence and Iranian law prioritize creditors who have a specific claim to a particular asset in the debtor’s possession. These creditors are given priority in receiving their claims, with the remaining assets distributed proportionately among the other creditors. This principle of proportional distribution is a cornerstone of both systems, reflecting a shared commitment to fairness and equality among creditors.
     The discussion also points out that in practice, a merchant who resumes trade after a period of bankruptcy is regarded similarly to a non-merchant debtor who has faced insolvency. Both types of debtors hold equivalent credibility and standing in the eyes of third parties’ post-bankruptcy. This practical equivalence suggests that extending bankruptcy regulations to non-merchants could enhance overall creditor protection without significantly altering the perceived reliability of debtors returning to economic activity.
     Another critical observation is the potential for legal evasion under the current framework. Since the Iranian Commercial Code confines bankruptcy regulations to merchants, individuals can engage in commercial activities while avoiding the title of merchant, thereby evading the associated legal obligations. This loophole not only undermines the principle of equality among creditors but also encourages economic actors to exploit the system to their advantage, leading to unfair outcomes and economic insecurity.

The study concludes that the institution of bankruptcy, as understood in Shia jurisprudence, applies equally to both merchants and non-merchants. This approach upholds the principle of equality among creditors, ensuring that all creditors, regardless of the debtor’s status, have equitable access to the debtor's assets. The current Iranian legal framework, however, restricts bankruptcy provisions to merchants, creating a risk disparity between creditors of merchants and non-merchants.
     Given these findings, the research recommends amending the Iranian Commercial Code to extend bankruptcy regulations to non-merchant debtors. Such an amendment would align Iranian law more closely with Shia jurisprudence and the principles observed in common law countries. This change would also mitigate the risks faced by creditors of non-merchant individuals and prevent economic actors from avoiding commercial responsibilities by eschewing the title of merchant.
     Implementing these recommendations would promote economic security and public order by ensuring that all creditors are treated equally and that the legal system cannot be easily manipulated to evade financial obligations. This proposed extension of bankruptcy regulations to non-merchants would enhance the robustness and fairness of the Iranian commercial legal framework, providing a more stable and equitable environment for economic activities.
     Ultimately, aligning the Iranian Commercial Code with the inclusive principles of Shia jurisprudence and common law practices would contribute to a more balanced and secure economic system, benefitting both creditors and debtors by promoting fairness, transparency, and accountability in financial dealings.