The Patent Right is a rational validity that is established between a person and an object or a place. There are some arguments and disagreements about the nature of the patent right‒is the financial right considered a kind of possession, kingdom, or priority? Also, there are some disagreements about proving such right and to prove this matter, some reasons such as consensus, narration, associating with someone, and the practice of the wise are cited. Some of the issues about which the Patent Right is considered are as follows: the Patent Right in unclean entities, the decline of entity from taxes and possession and the Patent Right towards entity after compensating the damage (giving substitution), the spiritual ownership, and the priority right. The provision of the realization of the Patent Right is its benefit and the existence of exploitation. The disturbance or seizure of the Patent Right without the permission of its owner is unlawful. Also, the exchange and ownership of the Patent Right freely through gift, will, or devotion is correct. Due to its kind, the end of the Patent Right is different.

The twofold of Shi’ism and Iranian national identity have been viewed differently. The paper has taken the same view as Imam Khomeini’s on appearance of Shiism in Iran by scholars’ leading and teaching during the process of time, not by Safavid’s force and obligation; though having established Shi’ism as the formal religion and Shi’ite national identity in Iran turned to governmental and administrative dicisions. Yet, Shi’it scholars’ educational and leading policies had began and spread the Shiite national identity before Safavid kingdom and, then, were more spread and rooted by Safavid cultural policies and scholars’ confirmation and propagation. Therefore, one may not consider Safavid kingdom as the cause of Shiism’s establishment; rather, Safavid dynasty itself and Shi'ite nationality were founded and rooted in the shadow of Shi'ite scholars’ educational and guidance and, epistemologically, socially and politically objectified in various and different components.

The union and disunion of Muslim sects in the Baghdad of Saljuqid age can be counted as a suitable ground for producing thought and, in some cases, tension and crisis. Among the sects, the Asharites and the Hanbalites, with regard to other Sunni sects, were of more common beliefs and thought; one, however, should not be careless of their disputes during Saljuqid age. These disputes, affected by such theological tendencies as Hanbalite view of corporeality of God and Asharites’ being close to mysticism and seclusion, with competition of two systems of power, caliphate and sultanate, in the age of 467-512 were more intensified. The intensification was caused by Saljuqids' protection of Asharites, from one hand and from the other, Abbasids’ support of Hanbalites. In this way, their opposition led to bloodshed. In this paper, the author has intended to explain the affection of the two systems of government on union and disunion of the two sects.

In this article, the author considers spouse heritage from irreplaceable properties. Shiite jurists have different viewpoints about mentioned issue. And most of them deny it.In this article it is criticized Ayatollah Hashemi Shahroudi ’s viewpoint, the headquarter of judicature, who published his article in Ahl Bayt Quarterly (No. 49).It is obvious that the author writes this article to transfer information and Ayatollah Shahroudi can reply this article.

Destruction of environmental is one of the most important subjects in the Islamic jurisprudence and law. In jurisprudence view, it is accepted that the destructors of environment have strict liability but unfortunately practical procedure of the courts is based on proving of Fault.The wasting of common natural heritage is one of the types of the wasting of another person’s property, although in environment case the concept of property should be extended to encompass the matters such as air.Acceptance of civil responsibility for destructors of environment is based on the impediment of the damages, by contrast the biocentric and Antrocentric approaches in the field of the protection of environment, jurisprudence approach is a Antro-biocentric approach.