hosein javar

Introduction :

The study explores a complex facet of contract law in Islamic jurisprudence: the binding or discretionary nature of agreements concerning future marital commitments. Specifically, it delves into whether a promise between two individuals to marry in the future constitutes a binding contract enforceable by judicial authorities or remains a discretionary commitment, allowing either party to withdraw from the agreement. This question holds significance as agreements of this nature are increasingly relevant within Islamic societies, where traditional legal principles intersect with evolving societal norms. The paper recognizes that contract law within Islamic jurisprudence contains distinct principles related to legally-binding and revocability, which influence the enforceability of agreements, including those associated with marriage. The scope of this study includes a doctrinal analysis examining authoritative legal texts and juristic opinions on agreements to marry, as well as an evaluation of perspectives within Islamic law that argue for and against the binding nature of these commitments. The findings aim to clarify the role of judicial intervention in enforcing marital commitments and determine whether a right-based or rule-based approach better aligns with foundational Islamic legal principles. This distinction between right-based revocability, which reflects individual discretion, and rule-based revocability, which entails inherent legal obligations, serves as a central framework for analyzing whether an "agreement to form a marriage" constitutes an enforceable contract.

Research Question :

This study addresses the following critical question within Islamic jurisprudence and contract law:  Is an "agreement to form a marriage" between two parties legally binding, allowing for enforceability in an Islamic court, or is it inherently discretionary, permitting either party to retract the agreement without legal repercussions? In answering this question, the paper also examines related considerations, such as the authority of the Islamic ruler to intervene in marital agreements and the potential for a court to act on behalf of a recalcitrant party to formalize a marriage. This inquiry into the scope and limits of bindingness in marital agreements addresses broader concerns regarding personal autonomy, judicial authority, and the interface of religious principles with societal expectations in Islamic contexts.

 Research Hypothesis:

The authors hypothesize that the enforceability of an agreement to marry under Islamic jurisprudence is governed by a rule-based framework of revocability rather than a right-based approach. This hypothesis proposes two key points:     Revocability as Rule-Based: The revocability attached to such agreements is intrinsically connected to the contract’s nature, meaning it is governed by fixed principles of Islamic law rather than individual rights or discretionary powers.Non-Enforceability of Marriage Agreements: Following a rule-based interpretation, a commitment to marry lacks enforceability, implying that the agreement does not grant the other party a right to compel marriage, nor does it empower the court to enforce such a contract through a proxy. The hypothesis suggests that an agreement to marry is not inherently binding, as its enforceability would compromise the individual's "right to refuse marriage," which Islamic law recognizes as a protected right. Thus, the paper posits that any attempt to enforce an agreement to marry contradicts the rule-based understanding of revocability in Islamic contract law and that the autonomy to refuse remains intact under this framework.

 Methodology & Framework, if Applicable:

This study employs a doctrinal methodology, focusing on a detailed analysis of primary Islamic legal texts and interpretations by prominent Islamic jurists. The approach involves reviewing classical jurisprudential sources, including Quranic verses, Hadith, and scholarly commentaries, as well as secondary literature that addresses modern interpretations and applications of Islamic law. The framework is divided into two central concepts: right-based revocability and rule-based revocability, both of which are foundational in Islamic legal theory.Right-Based Revocability: This concept reflects agreements where the revocability or legally-binding is viewed as a right of the individual parties, allowing them to retain discretion over enforcing or withdrawing from the agreement. Such revocability emphasizes personal autonomy, implying that the individual has the liberty to uphold or reject the agreement without legal consequences imposed by an external authority.Rule-Based Revocability: In contrast, rule-based revocability asserts that the nature of the agreement inherently includes obligations, thereby embedding bindingness within the contract itself. This interpretation aligns with principles suggesting that the obligations are inseparable from the contract's nature and must be upheld according to Islamic legal precepts, leaving little room for personal discretion.

Results & Discussion :

The study's findings elucidate the complexity of enforcing marital agreements within the framework of Islamic jurisprudence, distinguishing between rule-based and right-based revocability. Through an analysis of juristic opinions and principles, the research demonstrates that an "agreement to form a marriage" does not constitute a binding commitment in the legal sense, due to its unique position as an agreement with irrevocable revocability. This classification diverges from most contract types, where obligations are often enforceable by law and governed by a right to terminate or fulfill the contract based on mutual consent or legal authority.The research clarifies that while Islamic contract law generally upholds the binding nature of agreements—backed by principles like "fulfill your contracts" and "the faithful are bound by their conditions"—a promise to marry operates outside this paradigm. Marriage agreements are categorized under "rule-based revocability," where the revocability (or non-binding nature) is inherent to the agreement. This type of revocability underscores the autonomy retained by the individuals involved, reinforcing that they possess an unalterable right to refuse the marriage at any stage. This right to autonomy in marital decisions is not only protected but also deemed non-negotiable, emphasizing that neither party can unilaterally, nor can an Islamic court on their behalf, compel the marriage to proceed. The findings also reveal that attempts to enforce marriage agreements may lead to misinterpretations of Islamic legal principles if the hierarchical reasoning and subject-matter relationship are disregarded. Misapplication of the principle "the Islamic ruler has authority over the recalcitrant" risks confusing moral or ethical expectations with enforceable legal duties, particularly where marriage is concerned. Unlike typical contracts that bind parties to fulfill obligations, the promise to marry prioritizes individual discretion and respects the "right to refuse," underscoring that marriage decisions rest firmly within the realm of personal choice. Additionally, the concept of "irrevocable revocability" further defines the nature of a marital promise, indicating that while the agreement may be morally binding in some respects, it remains legally non-binding. This distinction reflects the values embedded within Islamic jurisprudence regarding the sanctity of marital autonomy and freedom of choice. The discussion highlights that marriage agreements fall outside the enforceable scope of Islamic contract law principles, as binding individuals to marry would violate the principle of mutual consent and respect for personal choice in matters of marriage.  The study also suggests an amendment in legal terminology, proposing that the term "promise" be replaced with "commitment" to reduce interpretive errors. This distinction clarifies that a promise to marry, unlike other contractual obligations, lacks enforceability and maintains the individuals' autonomy, emphasizing the importance of precise language in addressing commitments with significant moral but limited legal weight.

Conclusion:

The study concludes that the enforceability of marriage agreements is distinct from most contractual commitments due to the nature of marriage as a personal and discretionary decision in Islamic jurisprudence. The analysis reveals that misinterpretation of key Islamic principles may arise when the hierarchical structure of reasoning or the relationship between legal rulings and specific subject matter is overlooked. Specifically, the principle of irrevocable revocability underlines that individuals retain the right to terminate the agreement, even if made as a commitment, and this right cannot be overridden by external authorities or enforced by a judicial body.  Unlike other contracts where the "right to terminate" is intrinsic and non-revocable, a marital promise holds a unique position. The commitment to marry remains "permissible (revocable)" and operates under a rule-based framework, whereby autonomy and discretion in marital choices are safeguarded. This means that, regardless of whether the agreement is a unilateral or bilateral commitment, or directed at a third party, it does not impose enforceable obligations on the parties involved. Islamic law thereby excludes such agreements from the general rules mandating the fulfillment of commitments, underscoring the significance of maintaining autonomy in decisions related to marriage.The exclusion of marriage agreements from enforceability within Islamic jurisprudence is thus rooted in the importance of preserving the individual's right to choose freely in marriage matters. Attempts to enforce a marriage agreement would undermine personal freedom and autonomy, contrary to the principles of Islamic law that protect individual rights in marital selection. The conclusion emphasizes that the commitment to form a marriage should not be construed as a legally binding contract, reinforcing that the right to withdraw or refuse marriage is inherent and cannot be waived by either party .In response to interpretive ambiguities, the study recommends adopting "commitment" instead of "promise" to clearly delineate non-binding moral obligations from enforceable legal contracts. This precision in terminology could enhance legal clarity in addressing the nuances of agreements within Islamic jurisprudence, avoiding misinterpretations that might otherwise obscure the protective principles surrounding marital autonomy.

One of the requirements in the field of legal discussions is to find consistent and reliable foundations for the challenges related to issues such as environmental degradation. This study aims to find a local basis for the protection and preservation of the environment, especially where the environment is devastated and degraded. The question arises here is that among the local principles, can the rule of respect be used in the protection and preservation of the environment and for the liability resulting from its destruction and damage? In order to achieve the objectives of the research, the necessary data have been collected from library sources and were examined via the descriptive-analytical method. Based on the findings of the present study, the rule of respect is known as one of the possible principles in justifying civil liability for violating the right in the realm of the environment. The need to respect and protect the environment are justifiable on the one hand, given the intrinsic value of the environment and secondly, its instrumental value for better life of the human and its significant economic value in human life and also, the substantial damages that destructive actions against the environment inflict on human life and his/her material and spiritual benefits. On the other hand, arguments of respect, incidentally, include both financial and non-transactional aspects. In addition, the integrity of this protection, inevitably, requires that it be justified in case of violation of liability for compensation of harmful and destructive action against the environment.

On the one hand, the right of property of employer generally requires that any possession be permitted for him/her, even if the possession leads to the violation of the privacy of the workers and employees. On the other hand, respect for the privacy of individuals, including workers, requires that the confidentiality of their information and communications be protected and consequently, all of the actions violating privacy be forbidden. The question which arises here is how to act in the event of a conflict between these two rights? In the American law, most of the courts, with some considerations, take the employer's side on the basis of "the employer's right to own the workplace space", "the workshop policy right" as well as "the lack of confidentiality and lack of normal expectation of privacy". In Iranian law, it seems that on the one hand, the exercise of the employer's right, in practice, corresponds to the violation of another's right and loss, and on the other hand, the impossibility of exercising the supervision right is to the detriment of the employer and his interests. Therefore, based on the “rule of importance” the priority is given to the right of the one of more s9gnificance. In this regard, it can be said that the employer, in order to bring the two interfering rights together, can take actions to control the relationships among the workers inside the network under his supervision with the prior allowance or announcement. In this case, the electronic communication of workers can be considered within the scope of the "execution" (Eqdam) and "extinction of respect" (Esqat-e-Ehteram) rules. In this paper, through a descriptive-analytic method, the relationship between these two rights in the two mentioned systems is studied.

The private secrets of famous people, those under the focus of public opinion of the society, like political and non-political celebrities such as artists, actors, athletes and models, are strongly favored by many people. Whether celebrities have the same privacy as ordinary people or whether the realm of their privacy is more limited than the rest of society, there are disagreements regarding the restriction of the privacy of celebrities and equality of that with others. According to the first theory, for lack of privacy of celebrities or at least limitation of its territory, some reasons are alleged such as lack of normal expectation, Iqdam Rule, Patternity of famous individuals, public benefits, right to know and critique of hypocrisy. Based on the second theory, the principle is that people in society are at a level of privacy and that just because people are famous or role models for others does not violate their privacy. According to this view, if celebrities are in a position to reasonably expect their privacy,  like others, their privacy should be respected. Reasonable expectations of privacy can be identified in components such as the place being monitored, the subject of the surveillance, the manner in which personal information is used, the means of surveillance, the satisfaction of the person subject to the privacy and the nature of the relationship.