Causation is one of the most significant topics of law, if not the most important one. This article analyzes the validity of expert opinion in determining establishment of causation and peripheral issues of causation. Iranian courts routinely delegate the recognition of causation establishment to governmental experts, regardless of whether there is any legal basis justifying such reference. This article answers the following inquiry: “According to Iranian law, in what cases, if any, courts can rely on expert opinion in determining whether Causation is established for purpose of imposing liability?” This article assumes that a criterion should be implemented/designed to recognize establishment of causation based on a customary standard. Although in certain cases, establishment of causation and in some peripheral issues related to the causation, namely recognition of material causes and amount of damages (in the cases of shared liability), expert opinion could be the sole basis for determinate establishment of causation.

Causation, being one of the essential elements of criminal and civil liabilities, is the meeting point of these two forms of liabilities. Unless causation is proved, neither of these two forms of liabilities would come into play. However, there is a fundamental difference in areas of criminal and civil liabilities as to the concept of causation. Thus, in area of former, causation must be analyzed through criminal methodology. This is given to the fact the each area of liabilities has its own means and necessities and therefore each type can only be reviewed on the basis of each respective structure. While, it is accepted that compensation would be a consequence of bearing criminal liability, invoking criminal liability is based on standards sourced from criminal principals. This paper will endeavor to provide a comprehensive criminal overview of the causation, its elements, norms as well as challenges of such essential element of criminal liability in light of Islamic thoughts, judicial verdicts and criminal legislations, particularly the new Islamic Penalty Code ratified in 1392.

Most philosophers understand causation to be applicable to existential things. So, they say that applying it to other things, such as things that do not exist, is simply metaphorical. Also, they say that it is metaphorical to call preparatory causes ‘causes’. This is something that is prevalent amongst lay people but that is philosophically imprecise. Nevertheless, causation is something real that is capable of being applied to all things. So, it is possible to divide it into external causation and analytical causation. Therefore, it is possible to apply it in a real sense to things that exists, those that do not exist as well as conventional matters. There are many views regarding causation. These range from the denial of causation to its application to all things. However, the proper view is for us to say that only limited beings need a cause. Regarding the secret as to why something needs a cause, it is possible to say that if we say causation is limited to things that exist then the reason why something needs a cause is that its existence is limited. However, if we say that causation is a general concept, then we should say that the possibility of meaning is the reason why something needs a cause. The last view is that of the professor Ghulam Ridha Fayyadhi

Factors involved in emerging a harmful result are restricted to three types as follows: cause, means, and condition; factors involved in liability, however, are restricted only to 'cause' and 'means'. Since there is no distinguishing standard and because these concepts have many similarities, there are many difficulties in distinguishing them from each other. To distinguishing these concepts from each other, and taking into account the consequences of involving of each of the above-mentioned factors, the impact and true nature of each of them are taken as the main standards to distinguish it; and, the other [minor] standards such asforcibility are introduced as a preliminary step to impact and 'the causation relation' as the channel of impact. Thus, cause is the efficient factor whose forcibility is typically present and has, by its essence, direct impact in harming; and, therefore, there is a causation relation between it and the harmful result. Means is an efficient factor the result has been realized not directly from its presence but from its impact and its forcibility is potentially present and may be relatively actualized depending on the situation. As a channel for penetration of impact, the causation relation is established when impact of means in harming is actualized. Also, condition is an inefficient factor which has no impact in harming directly or indirectly and its forcibility is not present typically or relatively. Thus, it never has an impact in realization of the result. And, since it has no impact, it is not able to establish the causation relation as the channel of impact.

A group of ethical statements in the Koran and narrations consist of explicit causations. At times, the theologian’s serious intention in such causations is vague; this vagueness refers back to the generality of causation or lack of it thereof. Taking advantage of library research, this study achieved the following findings about causations explicitly mentioned in the religious ethical propositions: 1. Although causations stipulated in ethical recommendations are generalizable, they are not meaningful; namely, lack of them do not signify lack of ethical recommendations. 2. The appearance of causation in ethical propositions, unlike jurisprudential propositions, is a final cause, not wisdom. 3. The causations that are not testable and appraisable are accepted out of devotion, and debating about its concept is irrelevant. 4. Sometimes for ethical propositions, the causations are inferred from appropriate theistic, theomorphic or formative facts and knowledge. 5. Stating causations in religious ethical recommendations helps the mind of the audience put at ease, in addition to a general attitude toward ethics.

The causation is one of the reasons of the obligatory liability. Causation means a person make someone be hurt indirectly. Because it is important for judges and two sided of quarreling to be known the real liable and from the other side, the definition which is mentioned in the statue and the other determined definitions for having problems and ambiguities cannot clarify this matter we decided to shed light on the dark points and problems with analyzing and investigating in the lightening words of ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) and with considering all related traditions and using the prominent Islamic jurists to get standards and rules to recognize the real liable in the causation liability. The results show that the title of loss for its expanding concept applied for harm or penalty in order to be included all psych and property and also reputation losses. Also losing the will of the hurt (damaged) person, the allowable acts of causative agent and hurt person are criteria to be considered in recognition of liable to causation. At the end, the criteria of real liable in causation liability are accorded to every person or persons, he or they are liable and it should not be considered and he being far or close in the chain of reasons which creating loss.

Causation relationship، as one of the pillars of fulfillment of tort liability، is a matter that besides other pillars of lawsuit، should be proved by the claimant. But this general rule has exceptions in which the claimant is exempt from proving some pillars of lawsuit. One of the exceptions is presumption of causation. It means that in some cases، despite of the necessity of existence of causation relationship، the claimant does not need to prove it. None of the articles mention the presumption of causation expressly. What is discussed in this research is surveying the cases of presumption of causation in tort. With analysis of the tort-relevant topics، we understand that in tort، presumption of causation mainly exists in two cases: 1) Cases with presumed faults and 2) Cases in which proving the existence of causation in them is difficult because of some special circumstances; so we can apply presumption of causation in them.

Unlike Aristotle, Lakoff considers metaphor as an integral part of the process of human thinking and believes that humans often automatically and unconsciously learn and use a wide range of conceptual metaphors. A large part of our scientific and philosophical literature is full of conceptual metaphors. According to Lakoff, like other abstract concepts, causation is made of a small literal part which is extended by various kinds of conceptual metaphors in several directions. The current paper shows that a large part of the metaphors introduced by Lakoff, has been used by Muslim philosophers to describe causation. Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Mulla Sadra are two of the most significant Islamic philosophers. According to Ibn Sina, causation is based on ‘Causation is Transfer of Possessions’ metaphor. This metaphor depicts causation as a three-component relation in which the boundaries are very strong and sharp. According to Mulla Sadra, causation is based on ‘Causation is Motion out’ metaphor. This metaphor makes causation to have two components and decreases the strength of boundaries between the components of the relation.

The theory of conceptual metaphor claims that abstract concepts are understood by concrete and less abstract concepts. Conceptual metaphors map the conceptual structure of the source domain over the conceptual structure of the target domain. In this view, a conceptual metaphor is an intrinsic component of human thought, and the appearance of metaphors in language is only a sign of their existence in human thought.Lakoff and Johnson introduce causation as one of the important abstract concepts that are understood and described by various conceptual metaphors. Causation is conceptualized both in ordinary and everyday language and in scientific and specialized texts through single cognitive mechanisms.Mulla Sadra is one of the greatest Muslim philosophers and Al-Shawahid Al-Rubūbīyyah is one of his most important philosophical books. In the framework of the conceptual metaphor theory, this study has analyzed the various terms used to describe causation in Al-Shawahid Al-Rubūbīyyah written by Mulla Sadra. The most important conceptual metaphors that are used in this book to describe causation have been extracted. Each of these metaphors emerges through the derivatives of one or more lexical roots in this book.In this study, Mulla Sadra’s use of metaphors is quantified based on statistical methods. By calculating the frequency of metaphoric usage of all the words that describe causation related to a metaphor, the frequency of that metaphor is extracted in the book.The “Causation is motion out” metaphor (306) emerges through the derivations of «ṣ-d-r» (49), «n-sh-’» (124), «f-y-ḍ» (82), «r-sh-ḥ» (2), «j-l-w » (18) and «ẓ-h-r» (31) roots. The “Causation is making an impression” metaphor (112) is revealed by the derivations of «‘- th-r» (112) root. The “Cause is source” metaphor (120) is related to the derivations of «b-d-’» (120) root. The “Causation is being basis” metaphor (156) is represented by the derivations of «q-w-m» (156) root. The “Causation is making” metaphor (117) includes the derivations of «j-‘-l» (107) and «ṣ-n-‘» (10) roots. The “Causation is transfer of possessions” metaphor (61) is revealed by the derivations of «‘-ṭ-w» (14), «w-h-b» (15) and «f-y-d» (32) roots.The frequency of metaphorical use of each of the lexical roots and related conceptual metaphors in this book is shown by numbers in parentheses.According to the statistical results, the “causation is motion out” metaphor has the highest frequency and the “causation is transfer of possessions” metaphor has the lowest frequency in the book.Statistical differences between the two metaphors can find a philosophical explanation. According to the “causation is motion out” metaphor, the cause is like a boiling and luminous fountain whose effects are considered as its manifestations and overflowing water. Such an image of causation is in great harmony with Mulla Sadra’s philosophical system. But in the “causation is transfer of possessions” metaphor, there is a clear distinction between cause and effect, and causation is considered as a kind of forced movement caused by the application of force. Such an image of causation is less compatible with Mulla Sadra’s philosophical system.

The causation (Tasbib) is a ground of liability in law which leads to compensation of damages in civil law and punishment in criminal law. As causation being discussed in both civil law and criminal law separately، it is generally perceived that the causation in civil law is different from that of criminal law. By reviewing the roots and conditions of causation، it becomes clear that the nature of causation in both fields is the same and there are no significant differences between them. By perceiving the causation as a similar concept in both civil and criminal law، we could conclude that separating the causation and dealing with it differently in civil and criminal law is not fruitful and rewarding and therefore it should be disregarded.