پژوهشنامه حقوق اسلامی
پیاپی 64 (تابستان 1403)

Introduction:

Language serves as a fundamental cornerstone of human civilization, distinguishing humans from other species through its sophisticated capacity for expression, communication, and thought. This inherent capability not only facilitates interpersonal communication but also underpins the complex processes of human reasoning and conceptualization. The intricate relationship between language and thought is a subject of considerable interest across various disciplines, including linguistics, philosophy, and jurisprudence. Within the realm of legal scholarship, particularly in the context of Principles of Islamic jurisprudence (Uṣūl al-Fiqh) and its influence on the Iranian legal system, the exploration of the nature of the relationship between expression and meaning acquires a nuanced significance. This study aims to delve into the theoretical underpinnings of the "intrinsic" and "essence" views on the relationship between expression and meaning, assessing their implications for the legal domain, with a special focus on Shia jurisprudence and its impact on contract law in Iran. By examining the intrinsic nature of language and its role in the legal system, this research seeks to uncover the philosophical and jurisprudential dimensions that underlie legal interpretation and application.

 Research Question: 

The central inquiry of this study revolves around the nature of the relationship between expression and meaning in the context of language and its implications for legal theory and practice. Specifically, the research question seeks to understand how the intrinsic and conventional theories of language affect the interpretation and formulation of legal principles, particularly in Principles of Islamic jurisprudence (Uṣūl al-Fiqh) and the Iranian legal system. This investigation is driven by a desire to elucidate the extent to which the intrinsic nature of language influences legal reasoning and contract formation, examining both the theoretical foundations and practical outcomes of this relationship in a legal context.

Research Hypothesis :

The hypothesis posits that embracing an intrinsic view of the relationship between expression and meaning can lead to significant insights and advancements in legal theory and practice. This perspective, which acknowledges a direct and inherent connection between words and their meanings, could offer a more nuanced and effective framework for legal interpretation and the formulation of contracts. By rejecting the intermediary of conventional meanings, the intrinsic theory may allow for a deeper understanding of legal texts and the intentions behind them, potentially enhancing the precision and fairness of legal outcomes. This study hypothesizes that, despite historical criticisms and the limited adoption of the intrinsic theory among Shia jurists and Western thinkers, its implications for jurisprudence and the legal system in Iran are profound and warrant comprehensive exploration.

 Methodology & Framework, if Applicable :

This research adopts a descriptive-analytical methodology, leveraging both primary and secondary sources to explore the intrinsic and conventional theories of language within the domains of jurisprudence, legal theory, and philosophy of language. The study is interdisciplinary in nature, drawing upon insights from Islamic scholarship, Western philosophy, and semantics to construct a holistic view of the issues at hand. Through detailed textual analysis and critical examination of key texts in Shia jurisprudence, as well as works by Western philosophers and linguists, the research aims to elucidate the underlying principles and implications of the intrinsic theory of language for legal practice.The theoretical framework is grounded in the principles of hermeneutics and interpretation, providing a lens through which the relationship between expression and meaning can be examined in depth. This approach enables a comprehensive analysis of the intrinsic and conventional theories, highlighting their strengths, limitations, and relevance to the contemporary legal landscape. By integrating perspectives from a variety of disciplines, the study seeks to uncover the multifaceted nature of language and its impact on the formulation and understanding of legal principles.

 Results & Discussion :

The exploration of the "Intrinsic Nature of the Relationship Between Expression and Meaning" within the context of language's role in Principles of Islamic jurisprudence (Uṣūl al-Fiqh) and legal interpretation yields both enlightening perspectives and significant challenges. The theory posits that language, in its most fundamental form, has an inherent connection between expressions and their meanings, which has implications for understanding the origins of human language and the legal importance of verbal formalities in transactions, particularly in Iranian jurisprudence. This intrinsic connection suggests a natural, direct comprehension of language that transcends learned conventions.However, the theory faces substantial criticisms that challenge its universality and applicability. A core critique lies in the observable fact that individuals do not innately understand languages unfamiliar to them, nor do they always grasp the full spectrum of meanings in their mother tongue. This contradicts the theory's implication that the relationship between expression and meaning should be immediately apparent to all. Additionally, the process of naming and the application of new concepts further contest the theory's validity. The conventional nature of language development, especially in the creation of new words and meanings, indicates a learned rather than an intrinsic understanding.These criticisms reflect broader debates within linguistics and philosophy, notably regarding Chomsky's theories. The challenges to the intrinsic theory highlight the complex interplay between nature and convention in language acquisition and understanding. In the legal domain, the theory's limitations become particularly evident in the context of modern legal concepts and terminologies, which are often culturally and temporally specific. The intrinsic theory struggles to account for the evolution and diversity of legal language, underscoring the predominance of conventionalism in the development and interpretation of legal terms.

 Conclusion:

Upon thorough examination, the intrinsic theory, while offering valuable insights into the nature of language and its origins, ultimately falls short in addressing the complexities of language understanding and legal interpretation. The empirical challenges and philosophical criticisms against the theory underscore its limitations in fully accounting for the dynamic and evolving nature of language and legal discourse. The concept of Divine Conventionalism emerges as a more viable alternative within Principles of Islamic jurisprudence (Uṣūl al-Fiqh), positing that language's establishment and development are divinely ordained yet executed through human agency. This view harmonizes the divine aspect of language's origin with the practical realities of its human-driven evolution, offering a framework that accommodates both the sanctity and the variability of linguistic expression and meaning. The study's findings suggest a reevaluation of the intrinsic theory's premises and encourage a more nuanced understanding of language's role in legal theory and practice. While the intrinsic connection between expression and meaning presents a compelling philosophical idea, the realities of language usage, especially in legal contexts, necessitate a more flexible and context-sensitive approach. The adoption of Divine Conventionalism within Shia jurisprudence represents an attempt to bridge the gap between the innate capacities for speech and thought and the contingent nature of linguistic conventions. This approach acknowledges the foundational role of divine providence in establishing language while recognizing the human capacity for innovation and adaptation in its ongoing development. In conclusion, the intricate relationship between language and law, encapsulated in the debate between intrinsic and conventional theories of meaning, reveals the depth and complexity of jurisprudential inquiry. The study underscores the importance of a multidisciplinary approach that integrates linguistic, philosophical, and legal perspectives, contributing to a richer and more comprehensive understanding of the principles underlying legal interpretation and application.

Introduction:

The tradition of burying the deceased on private properties, resulting in the formation of family gravesites outside public cemeteries, is a practice driven by a complex mix of emotional, financial, and urban development considerations. This practice, which includes the establishment of family mausoleums by aristocratic families and notables, is historically rooted in various countries, including Islamic religious cities concerning certain esteemed Islamic scholars. While some of these private burial sites have transitioned into public cemeteries, their inception was not intended for public use, underscoring a tradition of proprietary control over such burials. The practice raises significant questions within the framework of Islamic jurisprudence and law, especially concerning absolute legal authority of the owner to exercise dominion or control over property [Taslit] (absolute right of an owner to deal with his property as he wishes) and its implications for burying individuals on private property. This inquiry seeks to explore the stance of Islamic law and jurisprudence, alongside modern legal systems, on the legality and permissibility of such burials amidst contemporary urban and societal challenges.

 Research Question :

The central question guiding this research is whether Islamic law and jurisprudence, alongside national laws in Islamic countries, permit the burial of the deceased on private property, given the broad implications for urban development, public health, and societal norms. This question encompasses the investigation of the extent to which the principle of Dominance within Islamic jurisprudence allows for such practices and how contemporary urban living requirements and societal interests intersect with or diverge from these traditional practices.

 Research Hypothesis :

The hypothesis posited by the authors suggests a potential reconciliation between the Islamic jurisprudential rule of absolute legal authority of the owner to exercise dominion over property [Tasleet] and the no harm principle [La-Za’rar], proposing that it might be permissible to bury the deceased on one's private property under specific circumstances. This hypothesis implies a nuanced understanding of property rights within Islamic law that accommodates the evolving needs of modern urban societies while adhering to Islamic legal principles and societal values.

Methodology & Framework, if Applicable:

The methodology adopted in this study is descriptive, analytical, and doctrinal, aiming to dissect and understand the multifaceted issue of burial on private properties within the context of Islamic jurisprudence and law. This approach involves an extensive review of primary and secondary sources, including jurisprudential rulings, works of Islamic scholars, and legal texts, to elucidate the foundational Islamic ruling on burial practices. The analysis further extends to the examination of modern positive law, particularly Iranian Civil Law and Islamic Penal Code, and its treatment of such burials considering environmental, social, and urban development aspects. The doctrinal framework is employed to interpret and reconcile traditional Islamic rulings with contemporary legal standards and societal expectations, aiming to provide a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter and propose viable legal and religious solutions.This paper presents a thorough investigation into the complex interplay between religious doctrine, legal principles, and societal needs regarding the burial of the deceased on private properties. By examining the practice through the lenses of Islamic jurisprudence and contemporary law, the study seeks to offer insightful perspectives and potential reconciliations that respect both traditional values and modern realities.

Results & Discussion :

The comprehensive analysis conducted in this study reveals a nuanced spectrum of perspectives within Islamic jurisprudence and Iranian law regarding the burial of the deceased on private properties. Central to this discourse is the principle of personal ownership and the rights it encompasses, which traditionally include the disposition of property in various manners, burial of the deceased being one such manner. Despite some Islamic scholars' interpretation of narrations from the Prophet of Islam (PBUH) as prohibiting such burials, a closer examination and alternative interpretations suggest that the practice can indeed be permissible. This permissibility is supported by the Sunnah of the Ahl al-Bayt, absence of explicit prohibition by the Islamic legislator, and the overarching principle of dominion over one's possessions.    However, the discourse does not end with the establishment of permissibility. The study delves deeper into the social jurisprudence perspective, highlighting significant concerns associated with private burials, such as psychological distress, potential for disease transmission, environmental degradation, and harm to others. These concerns present formidable challenges to the outright acceptance of burial on private property as a permissible act. The Iranian legal system's stance, reflecting these concerns, explicitly prohibits such burials, incorporating both criminal penalties and provisions for civil damages in cases where private burials cause harm.

Conclusion:

The intricate interplay between religious doctrine, legal standards, and social welfare culminates in a complex yet critical conclusion regarding the burial of the deceased on private property. While Islamic jurisprudence provides a foundational permissibility based on property ownership and rights, the practice's potential social, health, and environmental repercussions necessitate a more cautious approach. The study underscores that the absolute prohibition observed in Iranian substantive law, although seemingly at odds with traditional Islamic rulings and historical practices, is primarily justified by the tangible risks associated with private burials.     However, the study proposes a balanced approach, advocating for legislative reforms that allow for exceptions under stringent conditions. Such conditions include societal acceptance, absence of harm, and cases where the deceased's burial site could serve a broader community interest, such as promoting knowledge or religious devotion, typically applicable to celebrities or scholars. This approach aims to reconcile the initial permissibility with contemporary societal needs and legal frameworks, suggesting a case-by-case evaluation rather than a universal application.Furthermore, the discussion on affordability and access to public cemetery spaces opens another dimension to the debate, suggesting economic considerations as a potential justification for private burials in specific scenarios. This perspective highlights the need for a legal and religious framework that accommodates both traditional Islamic principles and the practicalities of modern societal living. In conclusion, while the study affirms the foundational permissibility of burial on private property within Islamic jurisprudence, it also acknowledges the multifaceted challenges posed by such practices. The recommendation for a legislative approach that allows for exceptions under carefully defined conditions reflects an attempt to harmonize religious principles with the realities of contemporary urban life, emphasizing the importance of adaptability and consideration for the common good in Islamic law and jurisprudence.

Introduction :

The balance between contractual freedom and legal restrictions forms the bedrock of modern civil code, compelling a nuanced exploration of the dynamics between parties' rights and obligations within contractual frameworks. This discourse becomes particularly compelling when examining the implications of transactions that contravene a party's commitment to abstain from certain legal acts. Such scenarios unveil the complex interplay between legal theory and practice, challenging conventional understandings of rights, obligations, and the sanctity of contracts. This research delves into the depths of Iranian civil law to unravel the legal fabric surrounding "transactions contrary to the commitment to legal act omission" offering a comprehensive analysis of its nature, implications, and the legal scaffolding that governs such transactions. This study embarks on a quest to illuminate the intricacies of these transactions, unraveling the legislative measures in place to safeguard the aggrieved party's interests, and probing the validity and consequences of violating such a contractual commitment.

Research Question :

The central inquiry of this research hinges on discerning the legal standing of transactions executed in defiance of a commitment to legal act omission. This question probes the depths of legal philosophy and jurisprudence, seeking to understand how Iranian civil code adjudicates such matters. It explores the dichotomy between the validity and enforceability of these transactions and the legal ramifications for parties that choose to contravene their commitments. This inquiry not only scrutinizes the legal framework but also delves into the philosophical underpinnings that define the essence of contractual obligations and freedoms.

 Research Hypothesis :

The hypothesis posits that transactions contrary to the commitment to abstain from a legal act occupy a nebulous legal terrain, where their validity and enforceability are contingent upon an interplay of legal principles, contractual stipulations, and the inherent nature of the rights in question. It suggests that while some transactions may be deemed valid yet unenforceable, others may be outright nullified, depending on the legal and contractual context. This hypothesis is grounded in the premise that the legal system strives to balance the sanctity of contracts with the protection of individual rights, leading to a nuanced adjudication process that carefully considers the specifics of each case.

Methodology & Framework, if Applicable :

This research employs a descriptive-analytical methodology, meticulously sifting through the annals of Iranian civil law and Islamic law to construct a coherent legal narrative. The analytical component seeks to critically evaluate prevailing arguments and theories regarding the legal status of transactions that breach a commitment to a legal act omission. By distinguishing between agreements that confer real rights (chose in possession/ jus in rem) versus personal rights (chose in action), the study sheds light on the subtleties that influence the legal outcomes of such transactions. Furthermore, it underscores the importance of the transaction's subject matter's legality and the conditions for transactional validity as pivotal factors in determining the legal status of these contentious acts. Through this rigorous methodology, the research endeavors to offer a holistic understanding of the topic, bridging theoretical insights with practical legal applications.

 Results & Discussion:

The investigation into the legal ramifications of transactions that defy a commitment to abstain from a legal act unveils a nuanced legal landscape, informed by a detailed examination of Iranian civil code and Islamic precedents. The study's findings underscore a pivotal differentiation between real rights (chose in possession) and personal rights (chose in action) emanating from such commitments, shaping the legal discourse around the validity and enforceability of contravening transactions. Real vs. Personal Rights: The research delineates a critical distinction between commitments that engender real rights, which are claimable against all, and those that give rise to personal rights, which are generally enforceable against specific individuals. This distinction is paramount in assessing the legality of transactions that breach a commitment to abstain from a legal act. Real rights, characterized by their universality and enforceability against everyone, render transactions that contradict such commitments valid due to the non-conflictual nature of these rights with the act of property transfer. Conversely, personal rights, stemming from a more restricted legal relationship, position contravening transactions as non-enforceable, primarily due to the illegitimacy of the transaction's subject matter.  Authorization of Contrary Transactions: The study further explores various legal mechanisms—such as representation, permission, transferring the claim to the debtor, quitclaim, and cancellation of the bargain—that could potentially legitimize transactions contrary to the commitment to abstain from a legal act. Among these, cancellation emerges as the most preferred option, reflecting the apparent intentions and behaviors of the parties involved. This preference underscores the legal system's inclination towards respecting the parties' autonomy and the dynamic interpretation of contracts.Impact of Authorization on Contrary Transactions: A pivotal aspect of the research's findings relates to the temporal effects of authorizing a contravening transaction. Should the legal system accept the retrospective impact of contracts, the authorization of a contrary transaction would validate its effects from the moment of the contractual breach. This perspective necessitates a comprehensive understanding of the conditions under which such authorization is deemed valid, offering a legal framework that accommodates the complexities of contractual relations and their execution over time.

Conclusion :

The exploration of transactions contrary to the commitment to legal act omission illuminates a complex legal and jurisprudential domain within Iranian civil law. The study's conclusion highlights several key insights:  Diverse Nature of Rights: The research substantiates the notion that commitments to legal act omission can either establish personal or real rights, with significant implications for the validity and enforceability of transactions that breach these commitments. This dichotomy necessitates a nuanced legal approach, distinguishing between different types of rights and their corresponding legal treatments.  Legitimization Mechanisms and Preferences: Among the mechanisms available for authorizing transactions that contravene a commitment, cancellation stands out as the preferred method, indicative of the legal system's flexibility in accommodating the evolving intentions and agreements of contractual parties. Retrospective Effectiveness of Authorization: The potential for contracts to exert retrospective effects upon authorization offers a dynamic legal tool for rectifying breaches of commitment, ensuring that the legal system can adapt to the realities of contractual relationships and the temporal dimensions of their execution.Legislative Ambiguity and Recommendations: The research identifies a notable ambiguity in the Iranian legislative framework regarding the creation of real rights to reclaim property, suggesting an area ripe for legal clarification and reform. It advocates for legislative action to address and amend the ambiguities surrounding the establishment of real rights, aiming to enhance the clarity, fairness, and predictability of the legal system.In conclusion, this study not only charts the complex legal territory of transactions contrary to the commitment to abstain from a legal act but also calls for a more refined legislative approach to solidify the legal principles governing these transactions. By dissecting the nature and implications of such commitments within Iranian civil law, the research offers valuable insights and recommendations for legal scholars, practitioners, and legislators, aiming to foster a more coherent and equitable legal landscape.

Introduction :

The inherent complexity in interpreting legal texts is often exacerbated by conflicts that arise between absolute and conditional affirmative rulings. An absolute ruling, devoid of qualifications or constraints, carries a distinct interpretation compared to a conditional ruling that is subject to specific prerequisites or conditions. This dichotomy becomes especially pronounced in Islamic jurisprudence, where absolute and conditional terms possess particular meanings informed by Moqaddamat al-Hikmah (conditions altering the absolute meaning to a general one). The linguistic and jurisprudential understanding of absolute and conditional rulings necessitate careful interpretation to avoid contradictions and ambiguities in legal practice. Within principles of Islamic jurisprudence [Usul al-Fiqh], scholars have rigorously debated the scope of Moqaddamat al-Hikmah, particularly when both absolute and conditional rulings appear to affirm each other in legal texts. This issue presents a significant challenge in imperative rulings, where adherence to the conditional can be viewed as recommended (but not obligatory) [mustahabb], thereby reconciling it with the absolute. In contrast, postural rulings, which pertain to the positive affirmation of both conditions, are less straightforward and reveal the need for a nuanced framework.The application of these jurisprudential principles to statutory laws remains underexplored. The legislative language used in statutory laws often reflects both absolute and conditional directives, posing a challenge for interpretation, especially when positive affirmation is required. Thus, investigating the applicability of principles derived from Islamic jurisprudence to statutory laws becomes essential in addressing these conflicts. 

 Research Question :

The primary research question guiding this inquiry is whether the conflict resolution mechanisms developed in principles of Islamic jurisprudence for reconciling absolute and conditional affirmative rulings can be applied to statutory laws. Specifically, this research seeks to explore the challenges of extending these principles from the realm of Islamic jurisprudence to statutory law interpretation, particularly in cases where both absolute and conditional rulings are positively affirmed. 

Research Hypothesis  :

The hypothesis posits that the doctrinal principles established in principles of Islamic jurisprudence for resolving conflicts between absolute and conditional affirmative rulings can be effectively extended to statutory laws. By adapting these principles, it is anticipated that statutory law interpretation can be unified and standardized in a way that aligns with Islamic judicial practices, providing a coherent framework for legal practitioners. This unification is hypothesized to outweigh the challenges of reconciling these principles with the unique structure of statutory laws. 

Methodology & Framework, if Applicable :

This research adopts a doctrinal approach, focusing on a critical examination of both classical and contemporary sources within Islamic jurisprudence and statutory law. The doctrinal method involves analyzing legal texts, judicial interpretations, and scholarly commentary to understand the principles governing absolute and conditional rulings. Key elements of the methodology include:     Literature Review: An extensive review of classical and modern principles of Islamic jurisprudence texts to identify the principles and definitions of absolute and conditional rulings. Special attention is given to works addressing Moqaddamat al-Hikmah and its interpretation across different Islamic jurisprudential schools.Comparative Analysis: A comparison of principles found in Islamic jurisprudence with those in statutory law to identify similarities and differences. This analysis involves reviewing existing statutory laws to detect instances of conflict between absolute and conditional affirmative rulings. Synthesis:Synthesis of findings from the literature review and case studies to develop a framework for extending Islamic jurisprudential principles to statutory law. This framework aims to reconcile affirmative absolute and conditional rulings within a unified judicial practice.  By combining these methodological elements, this research strives to produce a comprehensive analysis of the applicability of Islamic jurisprudential principles to statutory law, offering practical recommendations for legal practitioners. 

Results & Discussion :

The research findings reveal significant nuances in resolving conflicts between absolute and conditional affirmative rulings within Islamic jurisprudence and statutory law. These distinctions primarily emerge in imperative and postural rulings, and an analysis of the results helps in understanding the mechanisms that principles of Islamic jurisprudence offer. Imperative Rulings: In imperative rulings, Islamic jurists have differing opinions regarding the reconciliation of absolute and conditional rulings. Some jurists argue that conditional rulings should be interpreted as Mustahabb (recommended) rather than obligatory, allowing them to coexist harmoniously with absolute rulings. This approach effectively retains the integrity of the absolute ruling while offering additional guidance through the conditional provision. Other scholars advocate directly reconciling absolute and conditional rulings by allowing the conditions to modify the absolute nature, ensuring consistency in legal interpretation. In statutory law, however, the approach requires further refinement. The interpretation of conditional rulings as merely recommended is not feasible due to the mandatory nature of statutory regulations. Thus, in imperative statutory rulings, the primary solution lies in finding a way to reconcile absolute and conditional rulings. The results suggest that adopting a hierarchical interpretation, where the conditional complements the absolute without altering its foundational framework, provides a practical approach.Postural Rulings: Most scholars agree on reconciling the absolute with the conditional in postural rulings, provided that the unity and consistency of obligation and ruling are maintained. In postural statutory rulings, the essential requirement for determining and reconciling the conflict between absolute and conditional provisions is establishing the unity of cause and criterion. However, establishing unity is more complex in postural contexts due to the layered nature of statutory regulations.
 In both imperative and postural statutory laws, unity of cause and criterion can sometimes be inferred directly from the legislative texts themselves. In other cases, it can be deduced from external evidence pointing to a legislative intent to connect the conditional to the absolute. A systematic approach to inferring unity of criteria and cause is required to effectively harmonize conflicting statutory provisions.Broader Context and Application: The broader analysis reveals the importance of systematizing the unity of cause and criterion when reconciling absolute and conditional rulings. By adhering to principles that align absolute and conditional provisions, judicial practices can remain consistent and coherent. However, solutions like repealing statutory provisions instead of reconciling them or maintaining adherence to both absolute and conditional provisions without verifying unity create ambiguity and inconsistencies in legal interpretation. Moreover, the study uncovers challenges in reconciling principles from Islamic jurisprudence with statutory legal frameworks due to differences in language, intent, and legal culture. The discussion underscores the need for a hybrid methodology that respects the foundations of Islamic jurisprudence while acknowledging the structural requirements of statutory law. 

Conclusion :

The reconciliation of absolute and conditional affirmative rulings in Islamic jurisprudence and statutory laws requires a nuanced understanding of both legal frameworks. In Islamic jurisprudence, jurists have articulated different approaches depending on whether the ruling is imperative or postural. In imperative rulings, opinions vary between interpreting the conditional as recommended or reconciling the absolute directly with the conditional. In postural rulings, consensus exists among scholars regarding reconciliation, given that the unity of cause and criterion is established.In statutory laws, the approach to resolving conflicts between absolute and conditional rulings differs fundamentally. Conditional rulings cannot be interpreted as merely recommended due to the obligatory nature of statutory regulations. Thus, the only viable solution in imperative statutory rulings is to reconcile the absolute with the conditional, finding a harmonious interpretation that does not detract from the clarity or intent of either provision.For postural and imperative statutory laws, establishing unity of cause and criterion is essential yet challenging. Scholars infer unity from textual and external evidence, while statutory interpretations rely on legislative intent and the broader context of the law. Adhering to these principles ensures consistent application and interpretation. A systematic framework that reconciles absolute and conditional rulings can better coordinate statutory provisions, avoiding repeal or strict adherence without unity verification. Ultimately, the study demonstrates the feasibility of applying principles from Islamic jurisprudence to statutory law, emphasizing the importance of a unified judicial practice. However, this must be balanced with the challenges inherent in adapting traditional jurisprudential principles to contemporary statutory frameworks. The proposed framework seeks to achieve this balance, offering legal practitioners a coherent methodology for resolving conflicts between absolute and conditional affirmative rulings.

Introduction:

In the wake of the Coronavirus pandemic, the global legal framework has been put to the test, revealing the vulnerabilities of ongoing contracts, such as leases, to sudden and unforeseeable emergencies. These emergencies can disrupt the economic equilibrium of contracts, making the fulfillment of contractual obligations challenging, if not impossible, without necessarily leading to their annulment or dissolution. This paper outlines the potential for adjusting lease agreements under extraordinary circumstances induced by global health crises.

Research Question :

The core research question addresses whether the economic balance of lease contracts, which has been disrupted by the outbreak of pandemics like Covid-19, can be readjusted. It seeks to explore the legal avenues available for such adjustment, particularly in the context of Islamic jurisprudence. This question is pertinent in understanding the extent to which legal frameworks can provide flexibility and fairness in the execution of contracts amidst unforeseen global health emergencies.

 Research Hypothesis :

The hypothesis posits that, contrary to traditional enforcement mechanisms like contract dissolution or termination due to force majeure or other changing circumstances, the legal and jurisprudential foundations of Islamic law, including no harm principle [La-Za'rar], hardship [Osr va Haraj], implied condition, and unjust enrichment, support the adjustment of lease contracts. This approach aims at maintaining the contract while preventing harm to any party involved, thus offering a balanced solution that prioritizes the contract's survival over its termination. The novel concept of "Segmentation of Benefits" introduced in this research underscores the divisibility and interconnection of benefits derived from leased property, providing a foundational basis for adjusting lease contracts in the face of pandemics.

 Methodology & Framework, if Applicable :

The research employs a doctrinal methodology combined with a descriptive-analytical approach to explore the feasibility of adjusting rent in epidemic conditions. By scrutinizing the works of Islamic jurists and analyzing existing legal precedents and theories, the study aims to uncover jurisprudential and legal bases for contract adjustment in the context of lease agreements affected by pandemics. This investigation is structured around a three-part framework: firstly, examining the change in circumstances of lease contracts during pandemics; secondly, exploring the Islamic jurisprudential bases for lease contract adjustment; and finally, clarifying the legal bases for such enforcement. This comprehensive framework allows for a detailed exploration of the subject matter, facilitating a nuanced understanding of the potential for contract adjustment in unprecedented times.

 Results & Discussion  :

The study meticulously examined the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the economic balance of lease contracts, recognizing the necessity of adapting legal practices to address unforeseen disruptions. The key findings highlight the importance of a dynamic approach to contract law, one that acknowledges the unpredictable nature of such global crises and their potential to render existing contractual agreements inequitable or unfeasible.The investigation revealed that the principles of "no harm," "hardship," "unjust enrichment and abuse of rights," "implied condition," and "segmenting the benefits of the lease contract" provide robust jurisprudential and legal bases for the adjustment of lease agreements in response to the pandemic. These principles collectively advocate for a balance between the contractual obligations and the unforeseen circumstances that may disadvantage one party disproportionately. Specifically, the study found that:  No harm principle necessitates avoiding any contractual adjustments that would unfairly disadvantage one party, advocating for equitable solutions in the face of adversity. Hardship and implied condition principles support the notion that contracts can and should be adapted when fundamental assumptions underpinning the agreement change unexpectedly. Unjust enrichment and abuse of rights principles warn against leveraging the pandemic for disproportionate gain at the expense of the other party. Segmenting the benefits of the lease contract emerges as a novel approach, suggesting that the divisibility of the leased property's benefits can guide the proportional adjustment of rent, aligning with the actual utility received by the lessee during the pandemic.This study underscores the critical role of social solidarity in contract law, especially during crises that affect the fundamental conditions of lease contracts. It proposes a paradigm shift towards viewing contracts not merely as static agreements but as dynamic instruments that must adapt to ensure fairness and equity between the parties. The emphasis on adjusting rent according to new conditions reflects a commitment to preserving the contractual relationship and ensuring its sustainability over termination or dissolution.

 Conclusion :

The research conclusively demonstrates that the adjustment of lease contracts in response to pandemics like the coronavirus is not only feasible but necessary to uphold the principles of fairness, equity, and social solidarity in the face of unforeseen events. It argues against the outright termination of contracts due to the hardships imposed by the pandemic, advocating instead for a more nuanced approach that seeks to maintain the contractual bond through equitable adjustments.  This study's conclusions contribute significantly to the field of contract law, offering a blueprint for navigating the legal challenges posed by pandemics and other similar crises. It lays the groundwork for future legislative and jurisprudential developments that could incorporate these principles into the legal fabric, ensuring that lease contracts remain viable and equitable under the most challenging conditions.Ultimately, this research highlights the importance of flexibility, fairness, and foresight in contract law, calling for a legal framework that is responsive to the needs of both parties and the broader community during times of crisis. The proposed model of rent adjustment, grounded in Islamic jurisprudence and supported by legal principles, provides a viable path forward that honors the spirit of contractual agreements while adapting to the realities of an ever-changing world. In sum, the findings and conclusions of this study not only address the immediate concerns posed by the pandemic but also offer a timeless consideration for contract law: the need for adaptability, empathy, and a deep commitment to justice and equity in the face of unforeseeable challenges.

Introduction:

The financial framework of a nation plays a crucial role in its overall health, akin to the function of a circulatory system in a living organism. An effective financial structure is essential for achieving the lofty goals set by a legal system. Central to this effectiveness is the systematic supervision of the annual budget execution, a responsibility primarily vested in the legislative branch. However, this oversight requires a dedicated entity to scrutinize actions, align them with plans, rectify deviations, and prevent potential financial misconduct. In Iran, this responsibility is bestowed upon the supreme audit court, as stipulated in articles 54 and 55 of the constitution. The court's duty, according to article 55, encompasses auditing and reviewing all accounts of budgetary entities nationwide, ensuring adherence to approved funds and proper fund utilization, and preparing and submitting the budget's fate report to the Islamic Consultative Assembly. Given the passage of time since the court's establishment and legal developments, a reevaluation of its scope and obligations, especially in light of the opinions of the Guardian Council, is imperative.

 Research Question:

The primary inquiry of this research centers on the "legal analysis and examination of the jurisdictional scope of financial oversight by the Supreme Audit Court of Iran and the obligations imposed by the opinions of the Guardian Council." This research aims to shed light on the limits outlined for financial oversight by the court after considering the opinions of the Guardian Council. Specifically, it seeks to discern what restrictions are set to prevent unauthorized transgressions in the court's oversight role.

 Research Hypothesis :

The authors posit that the Guardian Council, entrusted with safeguarding Islamic principles and constitutional provisions, may narrow the scope and obligations of the Supreme Audit Court in its opinions. This potential narrowing, driven by the Guardian Council's commitment to Islamic law and constitutional principles, could pose a risk to the oversight competence of the court. The hypothesis suggests that the opinions of the Guardian Council might set stringent parameters, potentially limiting the effectiveness of the Supreme Audit Court in fulfilling its financial supervision responsibilities.

  Methodology & Framework, if Applicable :

To test the hypothesis and address the research question, a critical analytical method will be employed. The research will comprehensively study and analyze the opinions of the Guardian Council, particularly focusing on their implications for the jurisdiction and obligations of the Supreme Audit Court. The critical analysis will involve evaluating the Guardian Council's opinions in comparison to the constitutional mandates outlined in articles 54 and 55. Additionally, the study will scrutinize the potential risks and challenges posed by any perceived narrowing of the court's oversight scope.This comprehensive approach, examining the legal scope and obligations of financial auditing by the Supreme Audit Court through the lens of the Guardian Council's opinions, distinguishes this research as innovative and pioneering in its field. The aim is to provide nuanced insights into the intricate balance between the legal mandates, Islamic principles, and constitutional obligations shaping financial oversight in the Iranian legal system.

 Results & Discussion :

The comprehensive supervision conducted by the Iranian Supreme Audit Court aligns with the emphasized responsibilities of the Guardian Council in supervising parliamentary decisions. The court's duty to audit all budget allocations returning to the national budget is evident. However, the interpretative opinion of the Guardian Council, as outlined in article 55 of the Iranian constitution, imposes limitations on the Supreme Audit Court's authority. The council's stance restricts the court's auditing scope to allocations specified in the national budget, excluding matters beyond this purview. This restrictive interpretation, advocating for all-encompassing oversight, appears inconsistent with some ordinary laws.  Establishing a coherent and independent supervision mechanism for non-budgetary financial transactions or developing internal oversight structures within the organization emerges as potential solutions to enhance supervision and auditing effectiveness. The need for a balance between the court's oversight authority and the explicitness of the Guardian Council's opinion becomes apparent in ensuring comprehensive financial scrutiny without unnecessary constraints.

 Conclusion :

In conclusion, while the Guardian Council's interpretative opinion appears overly restrictive, it serves to maintain the clarity and specificity of the Supreme Audit Court's oversight authority. The council's stance, rooted in a desire for an idealistic interpretation of the constitution, underscores the necessity of the court's supervision over all financial matters of budgetary entities. However, its explicit limitations prevent unintended extensions of the Court's authority. Specific obligations further shape the oversight and auditing scope of the Supreme Audit Court. The accurate disclosure of expenses and allocations in the budget document remains paramount, provided it aligns with the institution's authority and financial independence. Prohibitions on delegating unrelated authorities, emphasis on utilizing private auditors and approved budgetary capacities, and the exclusivity of the court in performing its duties under article 55 all contribute to defining the Court's responsibilities.Moving forward, a delicate balance between upholding constitutional principles, meeting the Guardian Council's expectations, and ensuring the effectiveness of financial oversight is crucial. Adapting to evolving legal landscapes and interpreting regulations in alignment with the Guardian Council's opinions will be key in preserving the integrity and purposefulness of the Supreme Audit Court's role in safeguarding the financial health of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Introduction :

The pursuit of societal harmony and the dignified treatment of all individuals, regardless of gender, marks a foundational ethos of Islam. This principle is vividly embodied in the Quranic discourse, notably in the fourth chapter of the Quran [Surah] named Al-Nisa (The Women), which underscores the rights and responsibilities of women within Islamic society. Such a balanced approach extends to the adjudication of moral crimes, wherein women, akin to men, are subject to equivalent standards of justice and retribution. The delineation of crimes into common and women-specific categories, particularly those infringing upon moral and sexual norms, reveals a nuanced understanding of societal ethics in Islamic jurisprudence. This study embarks on an explorative journey through the biography of the prophet (al-Sira al-Nabawiyya) of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), juxtaposed against the backdrop of the pre-Islamic era, to unearth the strategies employed in addressing women's moral crimes, with a spotlight on the transformational ethos brought forth by the advent of Islam.

Research Question :

Central to this inquiry is the exploration of the methodological stance adopted in the prophetic biography towards women's moral crimes. It seeks to unravel the multifaceted strategies and interventions employed by the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in mitigating such offenses, particularly those rampant in the pre-Islamic society. The overarching question guiding this research is: "What approach has been adopted in the biography of the prophet (al-Sira al-Nabawiyya) of the Prophet of Islam against women's moral crimes, and what strategies and actions were taken to eliminate the aforementioned crimes prevalent in the pre-Islamic society?"

 Research Hypothesis :

The foundational hypothesis posits that the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), in his dealings with women's moral crimes, primarily aimed at safeguarding human dignity and ethical values. By steering societal norms away from sexual promiscuity and anchoring women's sexual behaviors within the sanctity of the family system, a dual strategy of prevention and punishment was envisioned. This was complemented by delineating clear boundaries for interactions between genders, fostering a safe environment for women's societal participation, and ultimately aiming at a voluntary abstention from crime through the promotion of ethical consciousness.

 Methodology & Framework, if Applicable:

Employing a qualitative research methodology, this study adopts a descriptive-analytical lens to delve into historical narratives before and after the emergence of Islam. A meticulous examination of ancient Islamic historical sources, along with narrative, jurisprudential, and legal texts, forms the bedrock of this research. The analysis is geared towards extracting, interpreting, and synthesizing data on the prophetic strategies against women's moral crimes. This approach is underpinned by a comparative framework that juxtaposes the ethical and legal paradigms of the pre-Islamic and Islamic eras, aiming to highlight the transformative influence of the prophetic biography in reshaping societal attitudes towards women's crimes. The inclusion of diverse sources, ranging from the Quran and Hadith to legal and historical texts, ensures a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter, facilitating a nuanced analysis that transcends mere descriptive recounting of events or legal edicts. This paper lays the groundwork for a deeper inquiry into the philosophical and practical dimensions of Islamic jurisprudence's approach to women's moral crimes, as encapsulated in the prophetic biography. Through a systematic exploration of historical contexts, legal norms, and ethical teachings, this research endeavors to illuminate the complexity and richness of Islamic legal traditions in addressing gender-based crimes, setting the stage for a subsequent discussion on the results and implications of these strategies in fostering a just and ethical society.

The study's investigation into the biography of the prophet (al-Sira al-Nabawiyya) of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) unveils a comprehensive approach to mitigating women's moral crimes, rooted deeply in the teachings of the Quran and the ethical paradigms of Islam. This approach, characterized by its depth, precision, and practical applicability, reveals four fundamental strategies aimed at the reformation of societal norms and personal conduct concerning sexual morality. These strategies encompass legislating on moral matters, delineating verbal and behavioral boundaries with non-Mahrams (Mahram is a term to describe a person related to another within forbidden degrees), the imperative to eschew obscenity and its propagation, and the definition and regulation of social interactions. The granularity and clarity of these directives reflect a sophisticated understanding of human behavior and social dynamics, offering a blueprint for a society grounded in ethical commitments and the sanctity of marriage and family life.The effectiveness of these strategies is predicated on their ability to foster an intrinsic aversion to libertinism, thereby encouraging voluntary adherence to ethical and moral standards. This internalization of values is further supported by explicit legal and punitive measures aimed at deterring and addressing transgressions, thereby maintaining the societal fabric. The Prophet's (PBUH) emphasis on prevention through moral education and the cultivation of an ethical consciousness underscores a holistic approach to societal reform, one that seeks to balance the spiritual and temporal dimensions of human existence.

 Conclusion:

The profundity of the prophetic biography in addressing the intricacies of women's moral crimes within Islamic jurisprudence cannot be overstated. The Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) strategies delineate a comprehensive ethical and legal framework that not only seeks to prevent moral transgressions through education and the cultivation of an ethical consciousness but also employs legal measures to address and deter such behaviors. This dual approach—combining preventive education with punitive measures—exemplifies the Islamic ethos of compassion, justice, and the inherent dignity of the individual. It reflects a deep understanding of human nature and the complexities of societal dynamics, offering timeless wisdom on the management of sexual morality and ethics.This research highlights the transformative impact of the prophetic strategies on pre-Islamic society, marked by a shift from a predominantly punitive approach to one that emphasizes moral and ethical reform. The integration of these strategies within the societal fabric of the time facilitated the emergence of a community characterized by its commitment to ethical principles, particularly in the realm of sexual conduct. This shift was not merely regulatory but represented a profound transformation of societal values and norms, fostering an environment where the dignity of women and the sanctity of the family were paramount.  The findings of this study not only contribute to a deeper understanding of the prophetic biography's approach to women's moral crimes but also offer valuable insights for contemporary discussions on legal reform, gender rights, and the role of ethics in the formulation of laws. The prophetic model presents a paradigm that balances the spiritual and temporal needs of society, emphasizing the role of education, moral cultivation, and legal measures in fostering a just, ethical, and compassionate community. This model remains relevant today, offering guidance for addressing moral and ethical challenges in diverse social and cultural contexts.  In conclusion, the biography of the prophet (al-Sira al-Nabawiyya) offers a nuanced and comprehensive framework for addressing moral crimes, particularly those related to sexual ethics. The Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) approach, characterized by its emphasis on moral education, prevention, and the judicious application of legal measures, provides a template for creating a balanced, ethical, and just society. This study underscores the relevance of these strategies in contemporary discourse on law, ethics, and gender rights, highlighting the enduring wisdom of the prophetic model in guiding human conduct towards a dignified and harmonious existence.

Introduction :

This paper delves into the examination of article 187 of Direct Taxes Act of Islamic Republic of Iran, which mandates the role of Public Notaries in guiding property owners through the tax obligations associated with the transfer of immovable property, as a prerequisite for the formal documentation and registration process. This legislative requirement underscores the critical intersection of legal procedure and fiscal responsibility within the realm of property transactions. By employing a descriptive analytical method, this study navigates through the complexities of tax liabilities as outlined in article 187, with a focus on the practical implications of this statute in the legal and Islamic jurisprudential context of Iran. The research underscores the importance of understanding these tax obligations, not only for property owners but also for legal practitioners and stakeholders in the real estate domain.

 Research Question :

 The central inquiry of this study revolves around the scope and extent of tax liability under article 187 of direct taxes act of Iran. Specifically, it investigates how comprehensive this tax liability is and whether the notion of prioritizing certain debts, as proposed in article 160 of the same law is essential for the issuance of the certificate required under article 187. This question is pivotal in understanding the legislative intent and the practical enforcement of tax obligations in the context of property transactions.

 Research Hypothesis :

The hypothesis posited in this research is twofold. Firstly, it asserts that the principle of indivisibility of debt applies uniformly to the liabilities under article 187, suggesting that tax debts are considered in their entirety without limitation to specific portions. This presumption is based on the absence of legislative specification to the contrary, aligning with broader principles of indivisibility of obligations within Islamic jurisprudence and Iranian law. Secondly, the study hypothesizes that in instances where mortgaged properties are sold, the prioritization of mortgage holders' rights, as articulated in article 160, necessitates that only the tax relevant to the property's transfer be collected, excluding other tax liabilities that might pertain to the property.

 Methodology & Framework, if Applicable :

The methodology adopted for this research is primarily descriptive-analytical, relying on a thorough review of library resources, legal texts, and the examination of prevailing legal practices in Iran concerning the subject matter. This approach enables a detailed exploration of both the theoretical and practical dimensions of tax liabilities under Article 187, within the broader framework of direct taxes act of Iran and Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh). The study meticulously analyzes legislative texts, judicial interpretations, and administrative practices to unravel the complexities of tax obligations in property transactions.

 Results & Discussion :

The findings of this research elucidate several key aspects of tax liabilities under article 187. It confirms the hypothesis that tax debts related to the transfer of immovable property are indeed considered indivisible, thereby requiring the settlement of the entire debt amount for the formal transfer process to proceed. This principle is affirmed through the lens of both Iranian law and Islamic jurisprudence, highlighting the comprehensive nature of tax obligations in property transactions.Moreover, the study sheds light on the specific types of taxes and penalties that fall under the ambit of tax liability related to property transactions. These include, but are not limited to, inheritance tax, income tax on property rentals, transfer rights, professional tax, incidental income tax, definitive transfer tax on properties, annual property tax, tax on vacant residential properties, and fallow land tax. Regarding the prioritization of debts, the research validates the hypothesis that, in the case of mortgaged property sales, only the tax directly associated with the transfer should be collected. This finding aligns with Article 160's provisions, emphasizing the precedence of mortgage holders' rights in such scenarios. However, the General Board of the Court of Administrative Justice decision presents a notable exception, mandating the auction winner or property buyer to settle all tax liabilities under article 187, thus presenting a nuanced view on the prioritization of tax debts.

Conclusion :

The research conclusively establishes that tax liabilities under Article 187 of Iran's Direct Taxation Law encompass a wide range of tax debts and penalties associated with property transactions. The indivisibility of these debts underscores a legislative intent to ensure comprehensive fiscal accountability in the transfer of property ownership. While the law prioritizes the collection of transfer-related taxes in the context of mortgaged property sales, the overarching principle remains the holistic settlement of tax obligations. This study's findings provide valuable insights for property owners, legal practitioners, and stakeholders in the real estate sector, highlighting the critical importance of understanding and adhering to tax obligations under article 187. It also underscores the need for a nuanced interpretation of these legal provisions, considering both the letter and spirit of the law within the cultural and jurisprudential context of Iran. In essence, this article contributes to the broader discourse on tax law and property rights, offering a detailed exploration of the fiscal responsibilities that accompany property transactions in Iran. It bridges the gap between legal theory and practice, providing a comprehensive analysis that enhances our understanding of the legal and fiscal landscape governing property transfers.