Let G be a locally compact abelian group and µ ε M (G) be given. If µ is the product of an invertible and an idempotent measure then the ideal µ * L1 (G) is obviously closed in L1 (G). The problem whether the converse is also true, which was raised by E. HEWITT, has been first studied by I. Glicksberg and later by B. Host and F. Parreau who completely solved it in their impressive paper. Thus µ * L1 (G) is closed in L1 (G) if and only if µ is the product of an invertible and an idempotent measure in M (G). In this paper we study the multipliers with closed range on the weighted group algebra L1 (G, ω). We prove among other things that, the Glicksberg-Host-Parreau theorem for group algebras remain valid for regular weighted group algebras.    

The previous part of this essay discussed the decree for possessing a found PROPERTY. Here in this part, the author reviews three topics: giving charity, safekeeping a PROPERTY, and handing over a found PROPERTY to the legal ruler. To elaborate each topic, he discusses evidences mentioned in Quran and Tradition and examines their authenticity in comparison to the ones of derelict PROPERTY. At the end, the decrees of a derelict PROPERTY and the fact of handing it over to the legal ruler are discussed.

The essay focuses on taking possession of the "Found PROPERTY". The author first presents four types of narrations that indicate taking possession of the Found PROPERTY, and then discusses their possible interpretations. He, then, mentions three ways to solve the paradoxes that lie in those narrations, and reviews the cases in which one can or should give the Found PROPERTY as charity. He believes the Found Animal and the Found PROPERTY in Masjid -Al- Haram are exceptions and one cannot take possession of them. Finally, he finds the relation between narrations which suggest taking possession of the Found PROPERTY or giving it as charity and those which highlight that some Found Properties cannot be possessed.

Right of private PROPERTY is the most important individual rights of society in the heart of private law. In Islamic law protection of PROPERTY as one of the five goals of fighhe, that is, protection of sagacity, religion, generation and self, is to be stipulated. Based on article 140 of civil code, the process of PROPERTY acquisition is restricted to four cases. On the other hand, legislator has limited the causes of PROPERTY acquisition to four cases and prohibited any other acquisition out of these causes. The purpose of present article is investigating the process of PROPERTY acquisition of intellectual works in the light of article 140 of civil code. However, at first, the value of intellectual works will be analyzed since it is the introduction of PROPERTY acquisition of intellectual works and the quality of private PROPERTY acquisition of intellectual works to its creator will be separately investigated afterward.

Shofeh in jurisprudence and article 808 means the right of each of the copartner in obtaining the partnership in case of exchange of exchange with his copartner for the payment of the price. Shofeh is current in immovable PROPERTY that cannot be divided, and there is a difference between jurists in movable and immovable PROPERTY that cannot be divided. This research has been done in a descriptive-analytical way and seeks to answer questions such as: "What is the jurisprudential basis of the right of Shofeh in cases of movable and immovable PROPERTY that cannot be divided? " and so on. Regarding the background of the research, it should be said that several research studies include: the conditions for obtaining intercession in the subject law of Iran and Imami jurisprudence from Fakhreddin Asghari, the principles Shofeh on jurisprudence in movable PROPERTY from the perspective of Islamic religions from Morteza Rahimi, omparative study Shofeh in Sunni jurisprudence And the rights of Iran have been exercised by Sadegh Soltanpour, etc. But the difference between the present study and the mentioned cases in proving the right of shofeh in over transferable PROPERTY and Non-transferable PROPERTY Indivisible based on jurisprudential reasons, while that research, looking for proving the lack of right of shofeh in over transferable PROPERTY and Non-transferable PROPERTY Indivisible. The result is that obtaining Shofeh in movable and immovable, PROPERTY that is indivisible in the four reasons of jurisprudence (books, traditions, consensus and reason) is fixed

One of the juridical rules is liability of taking delivery PROPERTY if contract is canceled, which is interpreted as “ liability of taking delivery PROPERTY of terminated contract” . This rule is applicable in (revocable) optional and voidable contracts. The main question about this rule is that, “ What are the contents, scope, and conditions of fulfillment and evidences of liability of taking delivery PROPERTY of terminated contract? ” Researchers of jurisprudence and law haven’ t done any scientific research in reply to this question and clarification of the mentioned rule, so that there appears to be a scientific gap in this case. The present research is intended to remove this scientific gap to accomplish the rule of liability of taking delivery PROPERTY of terminated contract and also to answer the above question with necessary studying and analysis of juridical sources and with the help of inference and library method. The most important finding of the research is that liability of taking delivery PROPERTY of terminated contract is one of the referents of the principle of ḍ aman al-yad (compensation for damage to PROPERTY held under trust) and its rules and regulations conform to ḍ aman al-yad.