Study of Muḥaqqiq Isfahānī’s Viewpoint on Ownership, Right, and Decree
Journal Title: فقه و اصول - Year 2013, Vol 45, Issue 92
Abstract
The ownership that involves transactions and barters is subject to the validity of the intellectuals and the lawmaker, which is created by hypothetical (i‘tibārī) existence and can somehow be called a hypothetical relation for whose validity the existence of local convention is sufficient; therefore, ownership is neither among the categorical accidents, the existence of whose subjects is necessary in the outer world, nor like the mental conventions that resembles the concepts whose accidents and qualification are mental. Right (ḥaqq) is a specific capability that sometimes applies to physical goods (‘ayn), sometimes to the contract, and sometimes to the person; such as the right of delimitation (taḥjīr), the right of option (khiyār), and the right of retaliation (qiṣāṣ). The object of right is in all cases an action that involves the physical goods, or person, or contract; whereas, property is a possession or domination that in reality involves the very physical good, or benefit, or action. Therefore, since the property is essential for absolute domination and the right is regarded as a special credit in some specific appropriations, the right cannot be considered as the property itself; and, furthermore, since property is by nature a simple issue and non-gradational, the right cannot be considered as a degree of the property. Besides, in some rights, including the right of delimitation and the right of specification (ikhtiṣāṣ), ownership is essentially out of question. Given its specifications, right is principally conveyable, relinquishable, transferable to inheritance except in cases in which a specific reason prohibits all or a part of appropriations and everything that is in nature characterized by right is apt to relinquish, otherwise it is regarded as a decree, in which case it is not relinquished except by compliance with decree or denial of the subject. Since evidences for transactions stand as enforcement of legal means, if in cases of doubt, there is certainty about transferability and doubt in deterrence or conditionality is the specific cause, the generality of the evidence of condition or amicable settlement (ṣulḥ) would be executed; and if doubt is in the transferability itself, the principle is the non-acceptance of transference.
Authors and Affiliations
JalīL QanavāTī, MahshīD Ja‘Farī Harandī, Husain Javar
Keywords
Related Articles
- EP ID EP183827
- DOI 10.22067/fiqh.v0i0.13050
- Views 113
- Downloads 0
A Research on the Criterion for Investigation about the Justice of the Anonymous
One of the most important legal issues debated among the jurists is whether it is necessary or unnecessary to investigate the justice of the anonymous and to what extent. The renowned majority of the jurists maintain tha...
A Deliberation on the Necessity of Imitating the Most Learned
The present article studies the issue of the “necessity of imitating the most learned (a‘lam)”. To this end, while comparing the evidences of the proponents and the opponents of the necessity of imitating the most learne...
Process of Verbal Signification from the Viewpoint of Principles of Jurisprudence
Transferring the mind from surface structure (lafẓ) to meaning is called verbal signification (dilālat-i lafẓī), which is divided into three types of comparative, implicative (taḍammunī), and obligatory (iltizāmī) in ter...
Familial Immunity in Offences against Properties and Ownership
Financial and economic relationships are undeniable realities and impressive factors in familial relations, and there are reciprocal interactions between these two. The existence of this relationship has caused the famil...
Party and Partisanship in Islamic Thought
Party and partisanship, in modern meaning, are new phenomena and, from the jurisprudence point of view, newly-emerged issues in Shī‘a community and culture. In religious thought, there are ambiguities, uncertainties and...