Islamic Propagation Office of Qom Seminary, Khorasan Razavi BranchJournal of Islamic Law and Jurisprudence2476-756511220250823Evaluation of the verbal documentation of the rule of non-existence of the event from the verdictEvaluation of the verbal documentation of the rule of non-existence of the event from the verdict7327730210.22034/jrj.2025.70598.2926FASeyyed MojtabaMirdamadiAssistant Professor, Faculty of Education and Islamic Thought, University of Tehran, Tehran, IranAmirMohammadZanganeh ZaveFourth-Level Student Jurisprudence and Principles, Qom Seminary, Qom, Iran.Journal Article20250118Rational evidence consistently influences the semantic interpretation of textual sources. Consequently, an awareness of the historical context in which <em>ḥadīth</em> were issued, as well as the prevailing social conditions, can provide critical insight for accurately understanding narrations. Some scholars, emphasizing the role of transmission contexts, argue that Sunnī jurisprudential doctrines influenced the formation of Imāmī narrations, thereby framing Imāmī jurisprudence as a derivative commentary on Sunnī jurisprudence. Conversely, others entirely reject the notion that Sunnī thought shaped the interpretation of Shīʿah traditions.<br />This study employs an analytical-critical methodology, examining textual sources and expert opinions to demonstrate that neither of these two positions is entirely defensible. Historical evidence, along with the practical approaches of jurists throughout Islamic legal history—reflecting their established intellectual traditions—suggests that recourse to Sunnī jurisprudence is necessary only in cases where an Imāmī narration is ambiguous or excessively concise, and where such reference may resolve interpretive difficulties. However, when a narration possesses an independent and coherent apparent meaning (<em>ẓāhir</em>), external reference becomes unnecessary. This perspective is grounded in the principle recognized by rational thinkers (<em>ʿuqalāʾ</em>) that the mere possibility of an alternative interpretation does not invalidate the prima facie meaning of a text.Rational evidence consistently influences the semantic interpretation of textual sources. Consequently, an awareness of the historical context in which <em>ḥadīth</em> were issued, as well as the prevailing social conditions, can provide critical insight for accurately understanding narrations. Some scholars, emphasizing the role of transmission contexts, argue that Sunnī jurisprudential doctrines influenced the formation of Imāmī narrations, thereby framing Imāmī jurisprudence as a derivative commentary on Sunnī jurisprudence. Conversely, others entirely reject the notion that Sunnī thought shaped the interpretation of Shīʿah traditions.<br />This study employs an analytical-critical methodology, examining textual sources and expert opinions to demonstrate that neither of these two positions is entirely defensible. Historical evidence, along with the practical approaches of jurists throughout Islamic legal history—reflecting their established intellectual traditions—suggests that recourse to Sunnī jurisprudence is necessary only in cases where an Imāmī narration is ambiguous or excessively concise, and where such reference may resolve interpretive difficulties. However, when a narration possesses an independent and coherent apparent meaning (<em>ẓāhir</em>), external reference becomes unnecessary. This perspective is grounded in the principle recognized by rational thinkers (<em>ʿuqalāʾ</em>) that the mere possibility of an alternative interpretation does not invalidate the prima facie meaning of a text.http://jostar-fiqh.maalem.ir/article_77302_c8bb4095c636aa64060531e924ee5b70.pdfIslamic Propagation Office of Qom Seminary, Khorasan Razavi BranchJournal of Islamic Law and Jurisprudence2476-756511220250823The Principle of Priority in the Conflict Between Rights of Individuals and Rights of AllāhThe Principle of Priority in the Conflict Between Rights of Individuals and Rights of Allāh33617812810.22034/jrj.2025.69325.2830FASaeidZiyaei FarDepartment for Philosophy of Jurisprudence and Law, Islamic Sciences and Culture AcademyJournal Article20240614The precedence or non-precedence of the rights of individuals (<em>ḥaqq al-nās</em>) over the rights of God (<em>ḥaqq Allāh</em>) is one of the key <em>uṣūlī</em> issues in the chapter on conflict (<em>taʿāruḍ</em>). Regarding whether the rights of God take precedence over the rights of individuals or vice versa, five possibilities have been proposed:
1) The absolute precedence of the rights of God over the rights of individuals (<em>mūjib al-kullī</em>);
2) The absolute precedence of the rights of individuals over the rights of God (<em>mūjib al-kullī</em>);
3) The default principle (<em>al-aṣl al-awwalī</em>) favouring the precedence of the rights of God over the rights of individuals;
4) The default principle favouring the precedence of the rights of individuals over the rights of God;
5) The absence of a general rule or default principle, necessitating reference to evidence and context in each case.
A comprehensive discussion on this subject has not yet been conducted within the science of <em>Uṣūl al-Fiqh</em>. The primary research question is: which of these possibilities is most justified? The aim of this study is to critically and scientifically evaluate the evidence supporting these possibilities, with the intention that the findings may be applied in Islamic jurisprudence (<em>fiqh</em>).
According to the author, conclusive evidence supports the fourth possibility as the only justifiable view, a position which itself constitutes one of the innovations of this study. Additionally, the proposition of the third and fourth possibilities, the provision of various evidence and interpretations in support of the fourth possibility, as well as the critique of the evidence for the other possibilities, are among the other innovations of this research. The evidence supporting the other possibilities is considered flawed. The main finding of this study is that the default principle favours the precedence of the rights of individuals over the rights of God.
According to this principle, in cases of conflict between the rights of individuals and the rights of God, the default presumption is the precedence of the rights of individuals, except where there is valid evidence indicating the greater importance of a specific right of God.
The precedence or non-precedence of the rights of individuals (<em>ḥaqq al-nās</em>) over the rights of God (<em>ḥaqq Allāh</em>) is one of the key <em>uṣūlī</em> issues in the chapter on conflict (<em>taʿāruḍ</em>). Regarding whether the rights of God take precedence over the rights of individuals or vice versa, five possibilities have been proposed:
1) The absolute precedence of the rights of God over the rights of individuals (<em>mūjib al-kullī</em>);
2) The absolute precedence of the rights of individuals over the rights of God (<em>mūjib al-kullī</em>);
3) The default principle (<em>al-aṣl al-awwalī</em>) favouring the precedence of the rights of God over the rights of individuals;
4) The default principle favouring the precedence of the rights of individuals over the rights of God;
5) The absence of a general rule or default principle, necessitating reference to evidence and context in each case.
A comprehensive discussion on this subject has not yet been conducted within the science of <em>Uṣūl al-Fiqh</em>. The primary research question is: which of these possibilities is most justified? The aim of this study is to critically and scientifically evaluate the evidence supporting these possibilities, with the intention that the findings may be applied in Islamic jurisprudence (<em>fiqh</em>).
According to the author, conclusive evidence supports the fourth possibility as the only justifiable view, a position which itself constitutes one of the innovations of this study. Additionally, the proposition of the third and fourth possibilities, the provision of various evidence and interpretations in support of the fourth possibility, as well as the critique of the evidence for the other possibilities, are among the other innovations of this research. The evidence supporting the other possibilities is considered flawed. The main finding of this study is that the default principle favours the precedence of the rights of individuals over the rights of God.
According to this principle, in cases of conflict between the rights of individuals and the rights of God, the default presumption is the precedence of the rights of individuals, except where there is valid evidence indicating the greater importance of a specific right of God.
http://jostar-fiqh.maalem.ir/article_78128_aff216caa91714a7130385a9e4c21058.pdfIslamic Propagation Office of Qom Seminary, Khorasan Razavi BranchJournal of Islamic Law and Jurisprudence2476-756511220251201A Fresh Investigation into the Jurisprudential Thematic Study of the Principle of “Man Malika Arḍan ...."A Fresh Investigation into the Jurisprudential Thematic Study of the Principle of “Man Malika Arḍan ...."63937818710.22034/jrj.2025.70740.2928FAMahdiBahadori GhaleshiriFourth-Level Student at Mashhad Seminary ;Mashhad-Iran. Bahadori3062@gmail.com;BelalShakeriAssistant Professor of Akhund Khorasani Specialized Center in Mashhad, IranAbolfazlNajee ForotanThree-Level Student at Mashhad Seminary ;Mashhad-IranJaafarFaghani BidsokhtehThree-Level Student at Mashhad Seminary ;Mashhad-IranJournal Article14031107The jurisprudential principle of “<em>Man Malika Arḍan</em>”—”Whoever owns the land, owns its airspace up to the sky’s zenith and its ground down to the earth’s boundaries”—in both earlier and later scholarly works, signifies the derivative ownership of an individual over the supra-surface spaces (airspace) and subsurface domains (the depths of the earth) by virtue of land ownership. The inclusiveness of this principle, in light of modern developments and contemporary circumstances, has encountered various challenges and has led to tensions between individual rights and governmental authority, as the exclusivity of this principle extends to both the supra-surface and sub-surface spaces of private property.<br />This issue has become a point of contention among scholars and intellectuals regarding the extent of individual or state ownership over supra-surface and sub-surface spaces—to the extent that an entire field within international law has been dedicated to air and space law. The emerging challenges have highlighted the necessity to clearly redefine the scope of this principle. Therefore, using a descriptive-analytical approach, this study revisits the concept of ownership of the supra-surface and sub-surface spaces. Various dimensions of this issue are examined from the perspectives of Islamic jurisprudence and legal frameworks. Furthermore, the implications of this principle on contemporary issues such as aerospace law and subterranean resources are discussed.<br />Moreover, this study attempts, through an examination of jurisprudential texts—considering the primary and secondary implications of the principle, as well as relevant juristic opinions and extracted legal norms—to demonstrate that the concept of ownership in this principle refers to restricted ownership (<em>milkīyyah al-muqayyadah</em>), which, within its customary limits, is subordinate to land ownership and beyond that is considered public domain (<em>anfāl</em>). Therefore, ownership of the airspace and subterranean depths by the state does not conflict with private ownership.The jurisprudential principle of “<em>Man Malika Arḍan</em>”—”Whoever owns the land, owns its airspace up to the sky’s zenith and its ground down to the earth’s boundaries”—in both earlier and later scholarly works, signifies the derivative ownership of an individual over the supra-surface spaces (airspace) and subsurface domains (the depths of the earth) by virtue of land ownership. The inclusiveness of this principle, in light of modern developments and contemporary circumstances, has encountered various challenges and has led to tensions between individual rights and governmental authority, as the exclusivity of this principle extends to both the supra-surface and sub-surface spaces of private property.<br />This issue has become a point of contention among scholars and intellectuals regarding the extent of individual or state ownership over supra-surface and sub-surface spaces—to the extent that an entire field within international law has been dedicated to air and space law. The emerging challenges have highlighted the necessity to clearly redefine the scope of this principle. Therefore, using a descriptive-analytical approach, this study revisits the concept of ownership of the supra-surface and sub-surface spaces. Various dimensions of this issue are examined from the perspectives of Islamic jurisprudence and legal frameworks. Furthermore, the implications of this principle on contemporary issues such as aerospace law and subterranean resources are discussed.<br />Moreover, this study attempts, through an examination of jurisprudential texts—considering the primary and secondary implications of the principle, as well as relevant juristic opinions and extracted legal norms—to demonstrate that the concept of ownership in this principle refers to restricted ownership (<em>milkīyyah al-muqayyadah</em>), which, within its customary limits, is subordinate to land ownership and beyond that is considered public domain (<em>anfāl</em>). Therefore, ownership of the airspace and subterranean depths by the state does not conflict with private ownership.http://jostar-fiqh.maalem.ir/article_78187_f44835037725186f009a91edb7853c2f.pdfIslamic Propagation Office of Qom Seminary, Khorasan Razavi BranchJournal of Islamic Law and Jurisprudence2476-756511220250823Comparative Study of the Harm Reduction Rule with the Action RuleComparative Study of the Harm Reduction Rule with the Action Rule951227814810.22034/jrj.2025.70933.2936FAEhsanRafie AlavyAssistant Professor of Jurisprudence Department of Baqer Al-Alum University of QomSeyyed AliSajjadiStudent of Qom Seminary, Master's degree student in International Commercial and Economic Law, University of TehranMohammad RezaJafariMaster's student in private law, University of TehranJournal Article20250227One of the most practical rules of common law is the rule of mitigation of damages. This rule is not explicitly foreseen in Iranian law and courts face obstacles in citing it in their decisions. This article has tried to adapt this rule to a local rule, namely the "rule of action", in order to show that the conditions for the fulfillment of the elements of the two are the same and even the rule of action is considered the basis of the rule of mitigation of damages. Therefore, the court's decision can be issued based on the rule of mitigation of damages, because such a rule has a precedent in jurisprudence and domestic law and not only does it not contradict them, but in some cOne of the most practical rules of common law is the rule of mitigation of damages. This rule is not explicitly foreseen in Iranian law and courts face obstacles in citing it in their decisions. This article has tried to adapt this rule to a local rule, namely the "rule of action", in order to show that the conditions for the fulfillment of the elements of the two are the same and even the rule of action is considered the basis of the rule of mitigation of damages. Therefore, the court's decision can be issued based on the rule of mitigation of damages, because such a rule has a precedent in jurisprudence and domestic law and not only does it not contradict them, but in some cases the effect of applying this rule can be observed in the words and articles of jurists and legislators.ases the effect of applying this rule can be observed in the words and articles of jurists and legislators.but in some cases the effect of applying thisOne of the most practical rules of common law is the rule of mitigation of damages. This rule is not explicitly foreseen in Iranian law and courts face obstacles in citing it in their decisions. This article has tried to adapt this rule to a local rule, namely the "rule of action", in order to show that the conditions for the fulfillment of the elements of the two are the same and even the rule of action is considered the basis of the rule of mitigation of damages. Therefore, the court's decision can be issued based on the rule of mitigation of damages, because such a rule has a precedent in jurisprudence and domestic law and not only does it not contradict them, but in some cOne of the most practical rules of common law is the rule of mitigation of damages. This rule is not explicitly foreseen in Iranian law and courts face obstacles in citing it in their decisions. This article has tried to adapt this rule to a local rule, namely the "rule of action", in order to show that the conditions for the fulfillment of the elements of the two are the same and even the rule of action is considered the basis of the rule of mitigation of damages. Therefore, the court's decision can be issued based on the rule of mitigation of damages, because such a rule has a precedent in jurisprudence and domestic law and not only does it not contradict them, but in some cases the effect of applying this rule can be observed in the words and articles of jurists and legislators.ases the effect of applying this rule can be observed in the words and articles of jurists and legislators.but in some cases the effect of applying thishttp://jostar-fiqh.maalem.ir/article_78148_0ea19b666f36f1f3b95008c6ca01f609.pdfIslamic Propagation Office of Qom Seminary, Khorasan Razavi BranchJournal of Islamic Law and Jurisprudence2476-756511220250823Jurisprudential solutions for prioritizing applicants in the allocation of limited medical facilitiesJurisprudential solutions for prioritizing applicants in the allocation of limited medical facilities1231567816110.22034/jrj.2025.70001.2877FADanialSheykholslamiPhD student in private law, Razavi University of Islamic Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.JaafarZangeneh ShahrakiAssistant Professor Razavi University of Islamic Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.. zanganehjafar@gmail.comSeyyedAliDelbariProfessor in the Department of Quran and Hadith Sciences at Razavi University of Islamic Sciences. Mashhad, IranMohammadaliYeganehDoctor of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Mashhad University of Medical SciencesJournal Article20241008When the same rights of different people collide, finding the priority and arrangement between the fulfillment of these rights is a challenge that requires a fair solution to solve it. One of the cases of conflicts between rights occurs when the number of applicants for medical facilities exceeds the quantity or quality of those facilities. In this case, finding a priority for allocating these facilities while maintaining the health and life of transplant applicants is worthy of attention. This research, which is organized by descriptive-analytical method and with the use of documentary sources, seeks to provide solutions that will be used to remove the aforementioned challenge. In order to achieve this goal by referring to jurisprudential evidence and relying on wisdom, five possible solutions are explained below: Paying attention to the right of learning, having the most influential person in the society first, paying attention to the degree of dependence of maintaining the biological and religious system of the society on the life of the individual, benefiting from the rule of lottery and random selection of people. After explaining each of these solutions and their legitimacy, the shortcomings and inefficiencies of each of them have been explained. The achievement of the article is that the use of the lottery rule, compared to other solutions, has faced fewer challenges and the field of conflict and protest is much less than other solutions.When the same rights of different people collide, finding the priority and arrangement between the fulfillment of these rights is a challenge that requires a fair solution to solve it. One of the cases of conflicts between rights occurs when the number of applicants for medical facilities exceeds the quantity or quality of those facilities. In this case, finding a priority for allocating these facilities while maintaining the health and life of transplant applicants is worthy of attention. This research, which is organized by descriptive-analytical method and with the use of documentary sources, seeks to provide solutions that will be used to remove the aforementioned challenge. In order to achieve this goal by referring to jurisprudential evidence and relying on wisdom, five possible solutions are explained below: Paying attention to the right of learning, having the most influential person in the society first, paying attention to the degree of dependence of maintaining the biological and religious system of the society on the life of the individual, benefiting from the rule of lottery and random selection of people. After explaining each of these solutions and their legitimacy, the shortcomings and inefficiencies of each of them have been explained. The achievement of the article is that the use of the lottery rule, compared to other solutions, has faced fewer challenges and the field of conflict and protest is much less than other solutions.http://jostar-fiqh.maalem.ir/article_78161_1ff525839358257e27e0c0fe42347fe0.pdfIslamic Propagation Office of Qom Seminary, Khorasan Razavi BranchJournal of Islamic Law and Jurisprudence2476-756511220250823Analyzing the sharia rule of lying in the mafia gameAnalyzing the sharia rule of lying in the mafia game1571777729710.22034/jrj.2025.71224.2951FARezaMihandoostFourth-Level Student at Mashhad Seminary & Researcher at the Mashhad Scholars Research Institute & PhD student in Criminal Jurisprudence at Razavi University of Islamic Sciences, Mashhad, Iran. (Corresponding Author)Mohammad BaqerQadamiFourth-Level Student at Mashhad Seminary ;Mashhad-IranJournal Article20250226As one of the examples of human social relations, games deserve attention and careful consideration from religious experts. The game of Citizen and Mafia is one of the group games that has received attention today. In jurisprudential books, the category of games and play has been mostly discussed in terms of betting and its rulings; but it seems that there are many other aspects that require jurisprudential attention. One of the aspects that should be examined in the game of Citizen and Mafia is the jurisprudential ruling on lying in conversations within this game, especially by the mafia group. The possible variables of the problem are gibberish, humorous lies, lies in ineffective news, lies in credit matters, and games and play; in this article, using library resources and descriptive and analytical methods, the extent of the impact of each of these variables and its relationship with the game of Citizen and Mafia has been carefully investigated.As one of the examples of human social relations, games deserve attention and careful consideration from religious experts. The game of Citizen and Mafia is one of the group games that has received attention today. In jurisprudential books, the category of games and play has been mostly discussed in terms of betting and its rulings; but it seems that there are many other aspects that require jurisprudential attention. One of the aspects that should be examined in the game of Citizen and Mafia is the jurisprudential ruling on lying in conversations within this game, especially by the mafia group. The possible variables of the problem are gibberish, humorous lies, lies in ineffective news, lies in credit matters, and games and play; in this article, using library resources and descriptive and analytical methods, the extent of the impact of each of these variables and its relationship with the game of Citizen and Mafia has been carefully investigated.http://jostar-fiqh.maalem.ir/article_77297_ef532f3873a097b7a6240b92d82f0c29.pdfIslamic Propagation Office of Qom Seminary, Khorasan Razavi BranchJournal of Islamic Law and Jurisprudence2476-756511220250823The influence of social changes on the sources of Imami jurisprudence in the Seljuk periodThe influence of social changes on the sources of Imami jurisprudence in the Seljuk period1792097814510.22034/jrj.2025.78145FAMohammadSadeqian HaratPhD student in history at Baqir-ul-Ulum University, Qom, Iran;HosseinIzadiAssistant Professor, History Department, Baqir-ul-Ulum University, Qom, Iran. mountain.damavand@gmail.com;AlinaqiAyaziAssistant Professor, Department of Social Sciences, Research Institute for Islamic Sciences and Culture.Journal Article20241015The science of jurisprudence, as one of the Islamic sciences, is the result of Islamic teachings in the field of individual and social rules and the type of response of jurisprudential elites to the questions of the individual and the Islamic society within the limits of religious duties. Undoubtedly, this science is affected by social developments; Because in every era, social developments have been the starting point for many new jurisprudential questions, the answers of which have been manifested in jurisprudential writings. In such a case, it is necessary to pay attention to the knowledge of the social atmosphere of writing the sources in order to achieve a correct understanding of jurisprudence writings in each period. This issue, in addition to a better understanding of the space in which the author breathed, also leads us to discover the unknown points of the text and the author's intention in writing, as well as the presentation of some unseen issues. The problem that this text pursues is to investigate the influence of the social developments of the Seljuq period on the sources of Imamiyyah jurisprudence and how to observe the invisible issues of these developments in the jurisprudence texts of this period.<br />The choice of the Seljuk period in the investigation of this matter also goes back to the important social developments of this era; Developments that caused stagnation and then the emergence of ijtihad in it. The findings of this study show that this period is one of the major periods that had an important impact on the type of writings of Imami jurisprudence and despite the reduction of sources, it caused some innovations due to these tensions, which left its effect on jurisprudence sources in the following centuries. This article aims to investigate this issue through a descriptive and analytical method and based on library documents, and examines the role and impact of social developments on the views of the authors of the sources of Imamiyyah jurisprudence and then the landmark jurisprudential books of this period.The science of jurisprudence, as one of the Islamic sciences, is the result of Islamic teachings in the field of individual and social rules and the type of response of jurisprudential elites to the questions of the individual and the Islamic society within the limits of religious duties. Undoubtedly, this science is affected by social developments; Because in every era, social developments have been the starting point for many new jurisprudential questions, the answers of which have been manifested in jurisprudential writings. In such a case, it is necessary to pay attention to the knowledge of the social atmosphere of writing the sources in order to achieve a correct understanding of jurisprudence writings in each period. This issue, in addition to a better understanding of the space in which the author breathed, also leads us to discover the unknown points of the text and the author's intention in writing, as well as the presentation of some unseen issues. The problem that this text pursues is to investigate the influence of the social developments of the Seljuq period on the sources of Imamiyyah jurisprudence and how to observe the invisible issues of these developments in the jurisprudence texts of this period.<br />The choice of the Seljuk period in the investigation of this matter also goes back to the important social developments of this era; Developments that caused stagnation and then the emergence of ijtihad in it. The findings of this study show that this period is one of the major periods that had an important impact on the type of writings of Imami jurisprudence and despite the reduction of sources, it caused some innovations due to these tensions, which left its effect on jurisprudence sources in the following centuries. This article aims to investigate this issue through a descriptive and analytical method and based on library documents, and examines the role and impact of social developments on the views of the authors of the sources of Imamiyyah jurisprudence and then the landmark jurisprudential books of this period.http://jostar-fiqh.maalem.ir/article_78145_a3d8ef463159fa6aa213738ccafe218c.pdf