Jurisprudence

The main purpose of life is based on perfection. God Almighty has provided the best tools for guiding human beings in the path of happiness and merit in the service of human beings. In the meantime, jurisprudence explores all the cases in which human beings need to know the divine rule and discovers the laws related to it. This research is an inferential analytical method based on evidence; the Holy Quran and narrations, and the rules of harmlessness and tasbib, lahraj. achieved this result that happiness is one of the natural needs of human beings and can be taught and has different levels and is an important factor for moving sincerely in the path of worship and creating motivation and ability to do Sharia duty and healthy communication in the family. The purpose of creation is achieved by reaching the highest level of happiness, which is possible by paying attention to spiritual values, basic needs, and having a purposeful life. Therefore, Islamic jurisprudence by presenting principles, framework, and laws tried to draw man's attention to the fact that happiness is not limited to material happiness and man should not always remain in material happiness and immaturity, rather, he must reach for the higher joys, science, discovery of unknowns, invention, etc. Hence, citing the four arguments of the book, tradition, consensus, and reason, have identified praiseworthy happiness and encouraged human society to be truly happy and confirmed the impact of happiness on the life process of individuals and the intellectual and practical manifestations and dynamism of the family and the progress of society.

In this paper, based on the verses of Quran and the traditions related to the supreme leader, it is about the supreme leader’s jurisdiction. This is important because the theory of supreme leader is one of the most important achievements of political thought driven from Shia school that is stemmed in the verses and cabbalas. The theory of supreme leader has a long history among jurists and amongst no one has been denied the supreme leader, but the jurisdiction of the supreme leader in occultation has been debated and it raised questions and doubts. Today, in this sense, the Islamic Republic of Iran on the basis of the theory of supreme leader has been led and establishing the principle of supreme leader in the constitution and the objectification on the community, it is of special significant to discuss the jurisdiction; hence, the analysis of the jurisdiction of the supreme leader is also a topic that can be investigated using verses and cabbalas. This paper, by explaining the Quran’ view and cabbalas on the authority of the supreme leader, investigates the issue.

The obligation of khums, which is understood from verse 41 of Surah Anfal, is a difference of opinion among the scholars of the two sects in some aspects, such as the meaning and scope of the word booty, from the branches of Islam and the common denominator of all Muslims. Shiite scholars, citing the absoluteness of the word booty and emphatic words and the word "I am the object" in the verses and hadiths of the Infallibles (peace be upon them), call booty any benefit that man obtains. The Sunni scholars also, since there is no restriction in its original meaning and by quoting the word "I am an object" and the narrations of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), have interpreted the word booty in everything that a person obtains. But for customary reasons they consider it bound to spoils of war, because the narrations of the Prophet (peace be upon him) which stated only the division of spoils, never indicate the monopoly of khums on spoils of war and the interpretation of spoils to spoils of war by the followers. Most are the result of their ijtihad.This article tries to study the word "booty" from the perspective of Shiite and Sunni scholars by using the library and analytical-descriptive method in order to reveal the reasons for the scholars' disagreement.

The present study aimed to analyse the process that caused revolutionary rationality. Revolutionary rationality supported extreme action in the years 1356-57. Shia political thought through the centuries has developed fertile and deep rationality in various fields of knowledge such as philosophy, history, mysticism and jurisprudence. "Philosophical Rationality" means that religion is interpreted with philosophy and given a philosophical form. "Jurisprudential Rationality" is the proven reason that establishes the goodness of religious rules and command. "Historical Rationality" identifies the principles and regulations behind the events of history, and "Mystical Rationality" is the expression of mystical meanings through rational style. Revolutionary rationality is rooted in the above principles. This rationality interacted with revelation and supported it, and had a relationship with other ideas, including the thought system in the old and new West, and emerged during the Islamic Revolution. Revolutionary rationality was manifested in the words of the revolutionary leaders in explaining the objective situation of society and politics, as well as in drawing the future of the revolution. The theoretical and methodological basis of this research is discourse analysis and its result, explaining the achievements of this rationality in overcoming the political order of Taghut and the birth of the Shia political order.

One of Islam's jurisprudential and moral issues is the competence or inadequacy of using weapons of mass destruction, predominantly nuclear weapons in war or defense. The present study aimed to analyze this issue and incongruity of do not use weapons of mass destruction with necessities such as the need to maintain the Islamic system or urgency such as preventing harm when there is a suspicion of death and severe embarrassment for Muslims. The results indicated that the use of weapons of mass destruction, both conventional and unconventional, has a jurisprudential and moral prohibition under normal circumstances. There are various reasons for this prohibition: the interdiction of using poison, the ban on killing women, children, the elderly, the prohibition of using inhumane tactics, the aggression rule, the observance of animals and the environment, and the rule of sin. The use of unconventional and prohibited weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear weapons, according to the term of international law, even in cases of necessity, has jurisprudential prohibition and moral incompetence. Evidence of use permit is distorted and inadmissible.

Purpose: In this study, the sociological model of the conflict between political Islam, jurisprudence and modernity in contemporary Iran (with emphasis on the Pahlavi era) has been studied. Methodology: The present research method is based on discourse methodology. Findings: We find that based on the main hypothesis, which seems to be the incomplete understanding of traditional political jurisprudence of the logic of modernity on the one hand and the concern for the rule of modernity values on the other hand has caused a confrontation between the two currents. Findings indicate that due to the passage of time and the need for more tendency of the traditional world to the world of modernity and society is facing modernization and scientific changes; Technical; Conclusion: The new world requires the adaptation of both traditional and modern tendencies to harmonize and create a new culture, so it is very important to advance the modern or traditional goals of culture and adaptation in society

As a nation that operates under a democratic form of government, Malaysia is home to a diverse range of political beliefs, each of which is supported by a distinct political party. In addition to that, it is made up of citizens of multiple races, such as Malay, Indian, Chinese, and other races, each of whom unquestionably has their own opinion concerning a variety of different subjects. The disparities in political ideology and cultural upbringing that exist between different ethnic communities are an essential factor in the potential for racial tensions. The objective of this article is twofold: first, to examine how politicians in Malaysia obtain support from voters, either directly or indirectly, by utilising jurisprudence theory; and second, to analyze how politicians, by utilising their authority, attempt to govern people in a peaceful manner. While the study employs a doctrinal approach, the data were gathered through library research to learn how Malaysian politicians use their positions of authority to further their own agendas while attempting to uphold the stability of the nation and the well-being of the people. The analysis concluded that the study of jurisprudence, which encompasses both the theory and philosophy of law, has a significant bearing on Malaysia's political and legal institutions and the constitutional processes and justifications for those institutions. Although obtaining justice for all parties can be challenging, nations typically prefer to adopt decisions that prioritise protecting the general welfare over pursuing the goal of justice.

The development of digital technology encourages the advantages of using digital media as the main information source. However, such development has also been misused by certain individuals or entities to mislead the public by generating fake news. On the Internet, false information travels faster than the truth, and it takes a lot of effort to stop it. This article uses a qualitative approach analysis to evaluate the various strategies used to thwart false news. In the first part, the authors described the notion of false news. In the second part, the authors examined the legislative framework that Malaysian parliaments have adopted to make it illegal to spread and publish false information. In the final part, the authors zoomed through the lens of jurisprudence that can be applied as a counter measure against dissemination of fake news. Hence, the importance of this article is to provide a clear understanding of the jurisprudence analysis of fake news in Malaysia.