Garuda - Garba Rujukan Digital

Typology of Fatwā Documented by Prohibition of Sadd al-Dharāyi‘ (Evasive Legal Devices) in Imāmiya Jurists’ Supposition ?????, ????; ????? ????, ????; ?????, ????
??? ? ???? ???? 50 ????? 4: ????? ????? ??5? ?????? ???7
Publisher : ???????? ??????? ?????? ????

The validity of sad al-dharāyi‘ (evasive legal devices) is among the age-old controversial problems of jurisprudence and principles of jurisprudence of legal schools. In the meantime, the Imāmī jurists have had a negative approach in methodology of Islamic jurisprudence (‘ilm al-uṣūl) toward its validity. What is noteworthy is that irrespective of the uṣūlī viewpoints of the Imāmī jurists, we find instances from among their fatwas that by way of causal inference in them they seem to be one of the referents of sadd al-dharāyi‘ and this indicates the non-homogeneity of the uṣūlī and jurisprudential viewpoints of the Imāmī jurists in the problem in question. Despite similar designations such as unlawful premise in Imāmīya’s principles of jurisprudence, the existing discrepancy can be a totally verbal dispute and resolve no difference between them in practice. The present article is intended to enumerate the jurisprudential evidences and referents in respect to its claim and tries to find sadd al-dharāyi‘ as applicable to them by way of causal inference in these referents.

Typology of Fatwā Documented by Prohibition of Sadd al-Dharāyi‘ (Evasive Legal Devices) in Imāmiya Jurists’ Supposition ?????, ????; ????? ????, ????; ?????, ????
??? ? ???? ???? 50 ????? 4: ????? ????? ??5? ?????? ???7
Publisher : ???????? ??????? ?????? ????

The validity of sad al-dharāyi‘ (evasive legal devices) is among the age-old controversial problems of jurisprudence and principles of jurisprudence of legal schools. In the meantime, the Imāmī jurists have had a negative approach in methodology of Islamic jurisprudence (‘ilm al-uṣūl) toward its validity. What is noteworthy is that irrespective of the uṣūlī viewpoints of the Imāmī jurists, we find instances from among their fatwas that by way of causal inference in them they seem to be one of the referents of sadd al-dharāyi‘ and this indicates the non-homogeneity of the uṣūlī and jurisprudential viewpoints of the Imāmī jurists in the problem in question. Despite similar designations such as unlawful premise in Imāmīya’s principles of jurisprudence, the existing discrepancy can be a totally verbal dispute and resolve no difference between them in practice. The present article is intended to enumerate the jurisprudential evidences and referents in respect to its claim and tries to find sadd al-dharāyi‘ as applicable to them by way of causal inference in these referents.

Analysis of Liability (Ḍamān) Based on “Delictual Exchange” and its Impact on Lawsuits of Civil Responsibility ??????, ????????; ?????, ????
??? ? ???? ???? 50 ????? 4: ????? ????? ??5? ?????? ???7
Publisher : ???????? ??????? ?????? ????

There are two major viewpoints in jurisprudence concerning the analysis of the nature of delictual liability (ḍamān-i qahrī). One viewpoint analyzes liability based on mere damage and the other based on delictual exchange. What is meant by delictual exchange in regard to delictual liability is that the ownership of the wasted property is, by order of the judge, handed over to the perpetrator of the damage and the ownership of its substitute (badal) to the person who has incurred the loss. With this analysis, the delictual exchange of badal and mubaddal (substituted) is by the judge’s order, whose   approval has significant impacts in the field of civil responsibility. For instance, according to this disposition, the components left over from the wasted property and the due rights belong to the perpetrator of damage, or in some instances that the usurped property is utilized somewhere and is valueless due to separation, the person who has incurred a loss merely deserve demanding its substitute and cannot ask for the very usurped property besides the damage. Similarly, acceptance of delictual exchange can be resulted in presentation of a new theory concerning the nature of ḥaylūla (lit. break or separation) substitute under the title of exchange of the inaccessible property’s benefits and the substitute.   

Reappraisal of the Principles Influential in the Theory of Relation Change ?????, ????
??? ? ???? ???? 50 ????? 4: ????? ????? ??5? ?????? ???7
Publisher : ???????? ??????? ?????? ????

There are five legal (uṣūlī) issues posited in legal theorists’ (uṣūlīs) statements as principles effective in theory of the relation change (inqilāb-i nisbat = change of relation between two conflicting reasons in the face of the third). The claim brought up about the issues in question is that the kind of principle accepted in any issue is effective in acceptance or rejection of the theory of relation change. In the author’s opinion, two issues from among the claimed instances are effective in systematization of the theory of relation change and not of the main theory; and the other three theories can, on any basis in which they are adopted, accept the theory of relation change and the kind of basis adopted in those issues have no effect on rejecting the theory of relation change. Therefore, the basic objections made in the legal theorists’ statements on this theory are incomplete.     

Title

Found 4 Documents
Search

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Title Search

Found 4 Documents Search

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Title

Found 4 Documents
Search