In this article a distinctive simile in rhetoric is represented as negative and positive simile neglected by rhetoric scholar until now, while it has been influential in the formation of figures of speech. In negative and positive simile, a poet first rejects similarity of a topic to someone or something, and then immediately proves the similarity of the same topic to someone or something in the opposing point of the previous image. Author of the present article has described the quality of the type of simile relying on a number of instances in Persian literature. The oldest case of such simile is seen in an ode penned by Naser Khosrow. The aim of negative and positive simile, like any other simile, is describing a topic or exaggerating on it, but these rhetoric intentions are achieved through novel ways. By providing a kind of contrast and distinction between two images, a poet focuses on their similarity leading to stronger impression and sentiment. Such contrast gives a pictorial basis of meaning. In addition, employing negative and positive simile, poets establish connections between dissimilar individual and entities and make their readers surprised.

After industrial revolution in nineteenth century, some amazing improvements appeared in scientific field. Outbreak of these improvements in world society created a lot of new problems and made jurists to find solution. One of these accessions is firm offer. So about the effect of firm offer in the opposite of some jurists and lawyers we should say, offer is an unilateral juridical act that it doesn'tcreate any obligation for offeror, and he can withdraw of his offer in every time before acceptance. it means, it doesn't make any obligation, merely, by binding the offer with limited time. Unless, the offeror has extincted revocation right impliedly or expressly. So, about the tortious liability of withdrawer only by resort on the rule of la-zarar (or causing loss and damage is prohibited in Islam, through abusing one's own property) - according to this point that rule can be able to create ordinance - under some circumstances is obliged to compensate for another party's losses.

The term "negation of negation" is a description Meister Eckhart employs for the "hidden essence of divinity." Through a precise analysis of Eckhart's works, in which he addresses the concept of "negation of negation," it becomes clear that although Eckhart sometimes uses the term "the One"—borrowed from Neoplatonism—as synonymous with "negation of negation," his understanding of "the One" significantly differs from that in Neoplatonism. For Eckhart, "the One" is not only beyond "being" and beings, but also manifests as "negation of negation" throughout the world. Furthermore, a proper understanding of the concept of "negation of negation" can serve as the key to resolving many apparent contradictions in Eckhart's works or conflicting interpretations of his writings. One such contradiction is the issue of the relation of "being" to God. "Negation of negation" teaches us that, for Eckhart, "being" holds two distinct meanings: in one sense, attributing "being" to God is permissible—though not ideal—while in another sense, applying the term "being" to God is nothing but error and a deviation from the truth.

Aristotle in his logical works, in addition to the statement, introduces the concept of proposition and defines it based on affirmation and negation in Prior Analytics. There are two issues about Aristotle's view of preposition, i.e., the interpretation of its definition, and its relation to the statement. In this article, first, three interpretations of preposition, including Alexander of Aphrodisias' and classical ones, are discussed and criticized. And because Aristotle points to the relation between contradiction and proposition, first, the definition of contradiction from Aristotle's point of view and, then, its relation to proposition are discussed. Finally, my interpretation of proposition is explained: proposition is a statement which its relation with contradiction is considered and the attention to this relation leads to the acceptation of the rule of contradiction which is the foundation of each deduction. The linguistics meaning of proposition is compatible with this interpretation: proposition is to propose one side of contradiction, and because of this, the dialectical proposition has two forms: question form the answerer and its replay as a premise in dialectical deduction.

Government in serving and perform their duties compelled of consolation contract, in this contract simple all of them, the public Accuracy is necessity. In addition this terms, article 79 of calculation law, need the terms of tender and Auction in governments contracts. In first of formality until signature contract, three stage be traversed, publication notice tender and auction, suggestion price of parties, and in the final signature the contract. Multiplicity of this stages cause that difference among juristic what the offers and what the accept, and when the contract is calculation. For removal this difference, determination offers in government contract is necessity. In this article next of definition offer with expression that trait in law and jurisprudence of Iran, study the offer in government contracts, with accuracy in expression mentioned and with law and jurisprudence that subject, it seem signature is consolation contract.

There is a disagreement between Ibn Sina and Khadjeh Nasir in analyzing universally negative conditionals. Ibn Sina considers them as “negation of necessity”, while the latter thinks of them in terms of “necessity of negation”. Khadjeh Nasir emphasizes the difference between the two positions, and deems the former more general than the other one, but Qutb Razi claims that, according to Ibn Sina’s works, they are equal, despite their difference in meaning.The author in this article tries to show first, in the discussion between Khadjeh and Razi, Khadjeh Nasir is right; second, by reformulating Ibn Sina’s arguments, one can realize an important formal flaw in his analysis; third, Ibn Sina’s answers to this flaw are not acceptable; forth, one may find another answer to this problem by the help of Ibn Sina’s analysis, but it also falls short of resolving the issue. Therefore, the question remains open for further endeavors.

In Islamic jurisprudence (in Imāmī, Shāfi‘ī, and Ḥanafī legal schools), it is accepted as a rule that as long as the intention of creation and the agreement of the party to a contract is not supplemented to ījāb (affirmation, offer), no legal right will take effect, and the affirmer (mūjib) can withdraw from his affirmation any time before acceptance, with no responsibility ensued for his withdrawal. In contrast, the Mālikī jurists maintain that the announcer of ījāb can not withdraw his ījāb before the acceptance by the addressee. To their opinion, the announcer of ījāb creates by his announcement the right to accept and possession for the other person (i.e., the addresser), and the latter must be able to utilize this right. For this reason, the affirmer does not have the right to withdraw from his affirmation, and in case of withdrawing, his withdrawal would be invalid. This viewpoint is compatible with what is generally accepted in western law. In written legal systems and in some common law countries, the theory of coercive affirmation is accepted as an inalienable legal rule in law. Imam Khumayni, from among the eminent Imāmī jurists, believes concerning the function of ījāb in conclusion of an agreement that the simple affirmative creation (inshā’) is sufficient for the realization of a contract, and that acceptance has no function except in establishing the dealt transaction and accepting the creation of the announcer of ījāb. Nevertheless, he believes that ījāb is not coercive and the mūjib can withdraw from his ījāb any time before acceptance.It seems that from the viewpoint of logics of law and argument procedure no certified reasons can be presented for the theory of coercive affirmation (ījāb-i mulzim), and the acceptance of this theory faces difficulty in the realm of primary ordinances and rules.

The word "right" is the most basic and practical concepts in the domain of law. The word Right is known as an easy and impossible concept. Although the apparent of this word seems simply,but has a countless complicated nature. The word has multiple dimensions and wide aspects, the "foreclosure" is one of its dimensions and the subject of this article. There are several types of deprivation of rights. It may be done by one person or another or by the ruling political power. It may be thought of as absolute or relative, and it may also be regarded as a right, or as an effect of a right, or as a punishment. This article is an attempt to define the concepts surrounding foreclosures and analyze similarities and differences in the legal literature of Iran, religious teachings and Western legal texts.