عنوان مقاله [English]
This research investigated atheists' obligations to Islam's secondary principles and their consequences on jurisprudence. Some contemporary and preceding jurisprudents contradict with this issue. Likewise, while the majority of jurisprudents believe in both its originality and consequences, some contemporary ones reject and consider it to be a redundant issue in principles of jurisprudence. There are different reasons supporting atheists' obligations to Islam's secondary principles most of which are narrative ones. However, it seems that intellectual reasons are prioritized to the narrative ones in this respect as considering the condition of knowledge and power in obligations, and the entailments of intellectuals' law-making are of importance. This research concludes that like Muslims, all atheists enjoy the conditions needed for obligations that is why they receive divine obligations and their atheism and ignorance do not eliminate these obligations, as the mentioned barriers deal with obedience which could be solved by acquiring knowledge and believing Islam. Therefore, the obligations they should take on are not intolerable and in vain and if the blameworthy atheists do not obey divine commands and prohibitions, it is because of their lack of authority and volition. This issue ensues different consequences in jurisprudence such as the validity of Muslim's trade with atheists and the permissibility of exporting goods to them which are unlawful and void in Islam.