جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "حق اختصاص" در نشریات گروه "فقه و حقوق"

The allocation right (The right of appropriation) that is in fact the right to take advantage of and manipulate things which are not regarded as someone's property both traditionally and canonically, is mostly related to the objects without financial value; most of discussions on proving allocation right for such objects are related to impure things, defilements, and forbidden matters that on the one hand taking advantage of them is canonically forbidden and on the other hand they may have some halal (legal) advantages; however proving allocation right in other objects without financial value (e.g. broken pitcher, old and scrap objects, etc.) is not difficult and done based on judgment of the wise. The term allocation right is not often found in primary jurisprudential texts, rather its definition and related canonical orders are only found in discussions about “taking advantage of impure things, defilements, and forbidden matters”. Islamic jurisprudents believe in the continuity of “allocation right” with “license for taking advantage”; however, considering “license for taking advantage” and “license for selling” opinions are different regarding their continuity. Shiite jurisprudents do not believe in it, therefore in such cases they consider “gift” as a solution. However, in some Sunni denominations like Hanafite continuity between “license for taking advantage” and “license for selling” is accepted, so they consider selling of defilements and sometimes-impure things acceptable, because of some halal (legal) advantages existed in them. It is appeared that license for taking advantage of impure things, defilements, and forbidden matters must be restricted to situations of necessity and emergency when there is no other solution, so allocation right for them does not proved in situations that are not emergency.

Paying attention to the changes of time, place and gradual conventional circumstances of every society is necessary. One of the issues raised in Imamia jurisprudence is that the impure objects are not capable of being owned; previously confirmed by the custom of society as well. Due to economic, cultural and social changes, this view does not remain as strong as before and in certain cases, in addition to the change of the prevailing social attitude, the Islamic jurists have also changed their opinion as to the capability of these objects to be owned. As regards pet dogs which are among impure objects, it may be said that given the social changes, their customary capability to be owned is uncontroversial; however, the qualification of halal (legitimate) profit is not still imaginable for them and this has led to different approaches to protection and non-protection of the rights of owners of pet dogs and has also provided the basis for the issuance of controversial decisions in the jurisprudence of courts. It seems that considering the customary capability of these objects to be owned, which is verifiable from the viewpoint of law and some sources of Islamic jurisprudence, as well as Haghe Ikhtisas (a special right resulting for example from possessing something) that Islamic jurisprudence recognizes for the owners of these impure objects, the protective approach should be adopted and the effects of this protective approach (civil and criminal responsibility) should be accepted.

The Patent Right is a rational validity that is established between a person and an object or a place. There are some arguments and disagreements about the nature of the patent right‒is the financial right considered a kind of possession, kingdom, or priority? Also, there are some disagreements about proving such right and to prove this matter, some reasons such as consensus, narration, associating with someone, and the practice of the wise are cited. Some of the issues about which the Patent Right is considered are as follows: the Patent Right in unclean entities, the decline of entity from taxes and possession and the Patent Right towards entity after compensating the damage (giving substitution), the spiritual ownership, and the priority right. The provision of the realization of the Patent Right is its benefit and the existence of exploitation. The disturbance or seizure of the Patent Right without the permission of its owner is unlawful. Also, the exchange and ownership of the Patent Right freely through gift, will, or devotion is correct. Due to its kind, the end of the Patent Right is different.

Other than its sense of ownership, domination sometimes refers to hypothecation and priority right. This is applicable to cases where there is no legal or customary value, or the owner is unknown. The validity of transactions depends on ownership of objects and specified values. In some cases, an object is not considered a property or owned by anyone, but the transaction will be valid and the price will be paid. The price basically serves the hypothecation, rather than the object left without any owner or value. In addition, the notion that some objects are value-less just because there are no benefits seems quite controversial. Many of those objects have, owing to human knowledge and modern technologies, can be converted into beneficial materials and even vital for everyday life, natural environment and other creatures. In the fiqh literature, there are no explicit scripture to prove hypothecation in foul objects. This right, and even the subsequent ownership, can rather be proven based on analytical commentary of how foul objects are purchased as well as the methodology of scholars and other evidence. In the rest of cases concerning hypothecation, however, there are authentic, explicit evidence available. Similar to other items subject to ownership and value, this right is supported by legal concepts such as validity of purchase, inheritance permit and validity of will.