فهرست مطالب sedighe mohamadhasani

The usurper in Shīʿite jurisprudence is obliged to return the specified usurped property, except in the case of destruction (both factual and constructive) of the usurped object. Article 323 of Civil Code based on this, considers purchaser of the usurped property as a usurper which the owner can refer to him for the return of the specified object. A proposed bill, however, based on the amendment of the above article has been submitted to the parliament in order to protect the validity of the official document and protect the rights of a bona fide purchaser, according to which the usurped property that has been transferred through drawing up and making an official document and the customer is ignorant of its usurpation is considered as a destructed object and the owner is only entitled to its price, which can only refer to the “usurper purchaser” to receive it. The aforementioned proposed bill is controversial in terms of jurisprudential foundations, which is examined in the present article by a descriptive-analytical method and using original jurisprudential sources, because the criterion for the realization of constructive destruction is the occurrence of an intellectual or religious impediments in the return of the existing object. “Capable of being owned exceeding,” “impossibility,” “bodily injury,” “Destruction of a property with a known owner,” and “Destruction of a usurper’s property especially in the assumption of destruction and demolition of his/her considerable property” are among intellectual or religious impediments to the restitution of a specified object and cause the realization of the title of constructive destruction, but the mere “transferring acts” due to the forcible illegitimate possession of the usurper does not lead to the realization of the religious impediment and consequently, the title of a constructive destruction about a usurped specified object. In addition, in the case of the constructive destruction of a usurped specified object, the customer, whether ignorant or knowledgeable along with the usurper purchaser is the liable and responsible for something identical (fungible) or the price of the usurped property and merely ignorance will not be removed his/her liability.

if the parents leave them, this means a refuge collapse to the children. The legislative system of the Islamic Republic of Iran has always efforted to minimize the adverse effects of such destruction by predicting social entities such as custody and meeting sessions. In this regard and based on legal approvals, the child and the non-custodian parent have the right to have meetings with each other according to judicial decision, and the prevention of the non-custodian parent has been deemed as crime. Surveys show that according to the reasons such as the necessity of devotion to relatives, the necessity of emotional training, quotations of clergymen, etc., the non-custodian father is obliged to set a meeting with the child in addition to the fact that the non-custodian parent and the child has the right to meet each other. Studying the subjected laws indicates that the legislator has only observed the subject of meeting from the perspective of the rights of non-custodian parent and has ignored his duties. So, regarding the partially irrecoverable effects of permanent break in one of the parents’ relationship with the child, it is suggested to approve the duties of non-custodian parent in addition to consideration of child envy, and to deem defiance of the mentioned duties as a crime.

There is a lot of dispute about concession as a common way of transaction. Among them, the necessity or possibility of concession in the matter of debt, is the axe of discussion between jurists. By considering the commonness of concession and the importance of its related matters, the present article, by an analytical-descriptive method, firstly establishes a primary principle in the issue and then based on each of the two jurisprudential views around the necessity or possibility of concession, these two ideas have been examined. According to these surveys, the primary principle in the issue, based on the idea of ownership possibility, is the necessity of concession and based on the idea of possession permission, the first principle is the possibility of concession. Based on ijtihadi reasons, beside the primary principle in the issue, whether the concession has been considered as a necessity or possibility, the idea of  necessity is more acceptable. The principle of necessity, the continuity of inadmissibility of debt claiming rule (in the case of debt  feasibility), essentialness of considering the certain cases of Ijma (consensus) which have been excepted out of the necessity, could be the reasons which would prove the matter of necessity.

In Shia jurisprudence, "ghasm" is one of the rights of the wife in marriage, which has been legislated to ensure fairness between wives in polygamy. There are three different definitions of "ghasm". The first definition of "ghasm" refers to an obligatory right of alimony for the wife. According to the second definition of "ghasm", it refers to "enforcing justice among Wives" and according to the third definition, it refers to "dividing the nights among Wives". The right to "ghasm" established by alimony is not comprehensive, and it is not exclusive. In addition, given that this right to "ghasm" has resulted in "the establishment of justice between the wives", it is permissible to define it in the context of "justice". According to the division of the night, the right to "ghasm" defines itself most accurately, as it corresponds to the nature of the "ghasm" and is free of the shortcomings of the other two definitions. While the definition of the "ghasm" right in Shia's jurisprudence and the special place of this right in stabilizing the relations between spouses in the case of polygamy are fully explained, the reflection of these provisions in family law has been neglected. The current study fills this gap by not only explaining this legal defect, but also proposing a precise definition of the term "ghasm" and several articles in family law to reflect this.

One of the important objectives that Islam has been seeking is the realization of progress and excellence for the human being. In the view of this divine religion nobility goes along with cultural development and human being’s attaining a pure life has been introduced as the desired in the path to cultural progress. Accordingly, all commands of the religion of Islam, in the form of jurisprudence, are in line with the realization of a pure life. As a part of Islamic jurisprudence, family jurisprudence also pursues the same goal and organizes family practical law as the most important provision of human evolution and advancement and the most fundamental context for the human being to attain a pure life. In a general view, all legislation in family jurisprudence is a purposeful system in order to realize a pure life. However the main query of this paper this is: how do the requirements of family law to pave the way for a pure life for the human being? This paper attempts to address this issue by using the Descriptive-Analytical Method and library resources. Accordingly, from an Islamic point of view, it deals with the concept of the "pure life". Then it explains the relationship of family law with a pure life and finally, it examines some of the practical laws of the domain of the family from two aspects: underlying practical laws and practical laws that remove barriers in order to realize a “pure life”.