Background: Abortion has never been a mere medical issue; rather, because of its widespread effects on the personal, social, economic, political and cultural matters has been almost globally noticed by governments in some way. The Therapeutic Abortion Act ratified by Islamic Assembly of Iran in 2005 followed by instruction of the Forensic Medicine Organization confirms this claim. Although, basically (ethically, religiously and legally) abortion is considered forbidden, but the Islamic jurisprudents following them, the Iranian legislator have regarded abortion as permissible in certain circumstances, due to the imposition of suffering and hardship on the religiously responsible persons and/or due to certain individual, social and other pathologies. Although the abortion due to “denegation of hardship” has been stipulated in the Act and the 5th part of the legal definitions of the Forensic Medicine Instruction, but the issue of the mother’s hardship that is the most basic topic discussed by this paper needs to be clarified more.Therefore, in this article it has been tried to examine some practical challenges of using Islamic rule of “denegation of hardships” (La Haraj) and some other implied rules of “compulsion” (Izterar) and “denegation of harmfulness” (La Darar(.Method: the study is a deep library-based one accompanied by some real case analysis through comparing with jurisprudential-legal principles and rules.Findings: The Islamic rules of ‘La Haraj’, ‘Izterar’ and ‘La Darar’ are secondary and dominant over the original rules like the banning of abortion.Though, the rules are there for inhibiting imposed pressure, applying them for every bit of situation potentially might bear some deep mundane and otherworldly consequences like the expansion of fornication, selective abortion, etc. Meanwhile, the meanings of these rules might change according to the scientific developments. Moreover, considering or not considering economic, social, psychological and other issues and also determining the dominant philosophical theory in the society are among the most important points in defining the limits of these rules.Conclusion: despite determining certain cases of the abortion in the Act of Therapeutic Treatment, the Iranian legal system is not yet comprehensive in this regard and the status of some other cases needs to be clarified. It has been proposed that different aspects of the issue are considered by the legislator in an interdisciplinary debate.

In the evidences of his reluctance, urgency, prevaricate and constriction, there is an exception and that is the discussion of "blood". There are some questions about this exception in which these questions are answered in three sections. The first part relates to the monopoly of blood in killing or its inclusion in the wound, which is correct, acting in accordance with rational balance. The second issue is the permission to pass or not to pass the blood, namely, killing in special circumstances, which, by not accepting the opposite opinion, and relying on reasons, the notable notion of lack of permission is strengthened. And the ultimate issue is the high tempo discussion of blood equality that is discussed in four branches of the blood equality of believers, believers and dissidents, believers and dhimmi kafir, believers and non-dhimmi kafir. In these four sections, the blood equality of the Muslims is considered to be appreciable. To be To explain this section, it is about the validity of blood equality, the proving of the impossibility of action based on the requirements, the requirements of the principle of transparency in legislation, the types of blood is wasted, the possibility of acting on priorities in terms of conflict and the need for action based on the overcoming of quantitative measures Is expressed.

As a result of rule of law ideal, judges are required to act in accordance with laws. The ideal is justified by some political values: political liberty, legal liberty, personal liberty and equality. Citizens are subject only to the law not to the arbitrary will or judgment of another who wields coercive government power. But in some cases law is indeterminate. In these cases there is an important question: how can the law command when the law books are silent or unclear or ambiguous? There are three theory in jurisprudence: legal positivism, legal pragmatism and legal interpretivism. I reject positivism and pragmatism and urge interpretivism. I believe that it provides a better account of our law.

When there is an ambiguous contract, it must be interpreted.For the purpose of correct interpretation of a contract, it is necessary to observe some rules and principles among which is ' Contra Proferentem Rule'. If the drafter (creator) of a contract also was the obligee of it or the composition of a contract (or clause) wasn' t related to one of the parties, in this case the mentioned rule to be used in the concept of ' preference of interpretation against obligee'. But if one of the parties draft the contract (a clause of it) and the other party accept it, in this case the ambiguity of the contract will be interpreted against the drafter (composer) whether he is the obligee or not. So in such a case, interpretation against the drafter will be superior to the interpretation against the obligee. Since the.issue has not attracted much attention in Iranian Law, this article will have it as the central point of study. Also the contra proferentem rule, in line with the protection of consumer rights, is to be used in the intrpretationof non-responsibility clauses in order to give them their proper and just sense.

One of the famous rules of the jurisprudence is the Ferash Rule, which is extracted from a famous Prophetic hadith «الولد للفراش و اللعاهر الحجر» According to this rule, when there is doubt about the paternal ancestry of a child, it could be confirmed under some conditions. Since, according to the Islamic law, this rule confirms the legitimate ancestry of a child and the newborn has afamily tie with the spouse, this rule is called the Ferash Rule. Articles 1158 and 1159 of the Iranian civil law stem from this rule, and article 1322 of the same considers it precisely among the legitimate proofs. In this article, the jurisprudential evidence of the Ferash Rule, its legal place, the conditions of its realgation, its content, its domain and its ways are clarified. The different aspects of child ancestry relative to this rule are studied too.

Rule is a proposition having a general subject and a provision that it rules all of its applied meaning. As a general state, rule is dividable to three types: rational, natural and enacted rule. As a category of the enacted rule, the Islamic rule is a general proposition that has been extracted from Al-Shara, containing a provision governing the people behaviors and factual happenings. This rule is basically divided to principle and jurisprudential rule. Islamic rule has three elements: Subject, provision and attribution. Subject is both of fully responsible person and his/her act; provision is the legal description of behaviors and what has named causation condition, hindrance (al-sabab, al-shart, al-manea) and validity or nullity (al-sehhah or al-botlan). Finally attribution is a relation between the subject and the provision. Islamic rule has the same qualities as legal rules. Such as: generality, compulsory and having sanctioned. However, there is some deference between these two rules in regard to their sanctions and scope of jurisdiction.

One of the indisputable and important rules of jurisprudence is the rule of Domination. According to this rule, man has dominion over his property and, consequently, the right to possess. The issue that has been raised in this regard and has caused controversy among jurists as well as jurists is the possibility of recognizing the human right to the body based on the rule of Domination. The specific question in this regard is whether the human right to one's body can be justified on the basis of the rule of Domination or whether another approach should be sought? The results of the analysis of this issue in the present paper are that the inference of kingship over the organs of the body, by analogy with the priority of human kingship over rubbing, does not seem correct because our kingship over property is not absolute so that we can By analogy of priority, let us conclude that we have dominion over the organs of the body. Also, the delegation of human affairs to him can not be considered as a reason for man's dominion over his body parts, because the delegation of human affairs to him is only in matters not related to body (blood) and includes political and social issues. It does not enter into the circle of sensitive issues in which the Shari'a procedure is based on excessive precaution. On the contrary, reliance on the rule and theory of guardianship seems to be a better explanation of the human right to his body.

The matter of "honor", even if it is only considered as an important and influential discussion in ethics, needs to be included in the process of issuing a religious and legal ruling in order to be practical. Jurisprudence, as the regulator of the actions of legally competent persons, with its rich resources in this field, [but] has not dealt with this issue independently, thoroughly and coherently. The existing rules and regulations of jurisprudence are usually negative and their contents mean minimal dignity and maintaining the status quo. There is no jurisprudential rule that invites and obliges all individual and social strata of the religious community to strive and take measures to promote dignity in all aspects. Due to this gap, the present fundamental research, with the aim of designing and applying the "rule of dignity" and by the method of inferring and analyzing the content of evidence, has dealt with four matters of the provisions of the rule, documents, applications and exceptions of this rule. According to this rule, any action that the dignity of the Muslim person and the Islamic society is subject to is obligatory, and in return, any action that leads to their humiliation is forbidden. This rule, with a wide range of topics, plays a decisive role in the protection of spiritual dignity and also, at the macro level, preserves and promotes the dignity and independence of Muslims and the Islamic community.