دانشگاه امام صادق علیه‌السلام پژوهش‌نامه حقوق اسلامی 2251-9858 26 3 2025 09 23 A Reflection on the Principles for Deriving Islamic Contractual Rules from the Ayat al-Ahkam of the Holy Qur'an درنگی در ضوابط استخراج قراردادها از آیات‌الاحکام 755 782 77705 10.30497/law.2025.247314.3697 FA محمدتقی مرادی دانش‌آموخته سطح چهار حوزه علمیه قم، قم، ایران. 0009-0002-9789-4655 Journal Article 2025 01 27 ‌ ∴ Introduction ∴ ‌ Islamic jurisprudence is grounded in the principles established by scholars to interpret and extract rulings from primary religious texts, the most authoritative being the Qur'an. The interpretation of these texts, particularly the Ayat al-Ahkam, which deal specifically with legal rulings, is central to Islamic law. Among the principles discussed in Uṣūl al-Fiqh (Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence), one of the foundational ideas is the authority of the apparent meanings of Qur'anic verses. Islamic jurists have long debated and written extensively on this issue, seeking to identify which presumptions can be considered valid in the extraction of rulings. However, the focus on these principles has often been sidetracked by the theological differences between the mainstream juristic schools and the Akhbari school, which has questioned the permissibility of deriving legal rulings from the apparent meanings of Qur'anic texts. Despite the vast literature on the interpretation and application of Ayat al-Ahkam, no comprehensive mechanism exists for consistently extracting rulings, particularly in relation to contracts. This gap is the focus of this research, which aims to provide a clearer understanding of how Islamic jurists have applied the Ayat al-Ahkam to contractual rulings. The study is particularly significant as it addresses an area that has not been sufficiently explored in existing scholarship: the method and criteria for extracting rulings from the Ayat al-Ahkam on contracts such as Ibdāʿ (capital investment with profit allocation), Sharikah (partnership), and Muḍārabah (profit-sharing). By critically analyzing the rules and methods used by jurists in citing the Qur'an for these contracts, the study endeavors to clarify whether these methods are valid and aligned with established principles. ‌ ∴ Research Question ∴ ‌ The primary question addressed in this study is: What are the rules for extracting contracts from the Ayat al-Ahkam? More specifically, the research aims to examine the ways in which Islamic jurists cite Qur'anic verses to substantiate the legitimacy of contracts such as Ibdāʿ, Sharikah, and Muḍārabah. The study also investigates whether these methods of extraction are grounded in clear, systematic rules, or if they are instead influenced by subjective interpretations and assumptions. ‌ ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ ‌ The author hypothesizes that there is no precise and clear rule for deriving Shari'ah rulings from the Ayat al-Ahkam in the works of Islamic jurists. This hypothesis stems from the observation that, despite the extensive literature on the interpretation of the Qur'an in Islamic jurisprudence, there is no established, universally accepted framework for extracting rulings related to contracts. Furthermore, the research suggests that this lack of a systematic approach has resulted in inconsistencies and divergent interpretations in the application of the Ayat al-Ahkam to the realm of contractual agreements. ‌ ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ ‌ This research adopts an inductive and critical approach, drawing on the analysis of both classical and contemporary Islamic jurisprudential texts. The methodology involves a systematic review of the literature related to the extraction of legal rulings from the Ayat al-Ahkam, with a particular focus on contracts. The study begins by defining the two key concepts: Ayat al-Ahkam and contracts, to ensure clarity in the analysis. Then, a thorough examination is conducted of the methods employed by Islamic jurists to extract legal rulings from the Qur'anic verses that deal with contracts. This is followed by a critical evaluation of the rules proposed in existing texts. The framework for this research involves two primary stages: Stage One: The compilation of rules for extracting contracts from the Ayat al-Ahkam, based on existing scholarly works and interpretations. Stage Two: The application of these compiled rules to specific examples of contracts, such as Ibdāʿ, Sharikah, and Muḍārabah, to assess the validity and consistency of the extraction methods. The results will be critically examined to identify any shortcomings in the process and determine whether the applied methods are aligned with the principles of Islamic jurisprudence. ‌ ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ ‌ The analysis of the rules for extracting contracts from the Ayat al-Ahkam of the Qur'an revealed several key insights into the methods and limitations of previous scholarly interpretations. The study demonstrated that while Islamic jurists have made significant efforts to apply the Qur'anic verses to various contractual agreements, such as Ibdāʿ, Sharikah, and Muḍārabah, there is a clear absence of a unified or standardized framework for such extractions. The existing interpretations often rely on general principles rather than specific guidance from the Qur'an, which can lead to inconsistencies and subjective conclusions. The primary critique presented in this research is the tendency to apply Qur'anic verses to contracts that are grounded in human custom, such as commercial partnerships, without sufficient regard for the Qur'an's actual purpose and method of legal instruction. The Qur'an generally conveys legal rulings through broad principles, leaving specific details to be clarified through other sources of law and human reasoning. As such, applying verses to contracts like Ibdāʿ, Sharikah, and Muḍārabah appears to be a strained interpretation, lacking a comprehensive foundation in the text itself. Furthermore, the study critiqued the common misapplication of the Qur'anic principle of establishing new meaning in legal matters. The principle "al-ta'sīs khayr min al-ta'kīd" (establishing new meaning is preferred over reiteration) suggests that the Qur'an addresses novel legal questions or matters beyond the common understanding of people, rather than reinforcing established customs like contracts. This conceptual misalignment challenges the legitimacy of using the Qur'an as a primary source for the detailed regulation of contracts, which are traditionally governed by social practices and customs. The study also examined the critical perspectives of Ayat al-Ahkam researchers who have attempted to connect Qur'anic verses to contracts. It was found that while these scholars made significant contributions to Islamic jurisprudence, their conclusions were often incomplete, as they failed to recognize the limitations of the Qur'an's direct engagement with the specifics of contractual law. ‌ ∴ Conclusion ∴ ‌ In conclusion, this research emphasizes the need for a more systematic and disciplined approach to the extraction of legal rulings from the Ayat al-Ahkam of the Qur'an, particularly in relation to contracts. The study argues that the Qur'an's mission is to address matters beyond human understanding and that the principles conveyed through its verses should not be used to establish detailed rules for contracts, which are inherently rooted in human custom. While some jurists have attempted to extract rulings on contracts such as Ibdāʿ, Sharikah, and Muḍārabah from the Qur'an, their interpretations often overlook the Qur'an’s method of addressing legal matters. The research suggests that rather than focusing on specific contractual details, Islamic jurisprudence should focus on the broader legal principles outlined in the Qur'an and supplement these with insights from other sources of Islamic law, including human custom, reasoning, and established legal precedents. The study calls for further exploration of the relationship between the general principles of the Qur'an and the specificities of contractual law. The absence of clear, standardized rules for deriving contracts from the Qur'an indicates a need for more refined methods of legal extraction that better align with the broader goals of Islamic jurisprudence. Ultimately, the research urges scholars to reconsider the applicability of Qur'anic verses to the detailed regulation of contracts and to focus on the principles that can guide the evolution of contract law in the context of Islamic legal thought. در چگونگی استنباط احکام فقهی از آیات‌الاحکام، غیر از قواعد عمومی مربوط به ظهور الفاظ، ضابطه خاص دیگری توسط فقیهان مطرح نشده است. ازاین‌رو، آیات‌الاحکام پژوهان سعی کرده‌اند آیات قرآنی متناسب با ابواب مختلف فقهی را، از جمله قراردادهای با نام، با کمترین تناسبی استخراج کرده و به‌عنوان دلیل مشروعیت عقود مطرح کنند. هدف اصلی این نوشتار، صورت‌بندی ضوابط استخراج قراردادها از آیات‌الاحکام با مطالعه انتقادی استناد عقود «ابضاع»، «شرکت» و «مضاربه» به قرآن کریم است. در پژوهش پیش‌رو، با اتخاذ روش توصیفی تحلیلی به نظام‌مند کردن استخراج احکام عقود از قرآن کریم و کشف رسالت، مبانی و روش قرآن در بیان احکام فقهی پرداخته شده است. در سایه توجه به رسالت نزول قرآن کریم، توجه به ظهور آیات در استخراج احکام، توجه به روش قرآن کریم در بیان کلیات احکام، اتحاد مسلک شارع با عقلاء در امور عقلایی، مدنظر قرار دادن مقدمات حکمت در تمسک به اطلاق‌ آیات قرآنی و در نهایت، قاعده «التأسیس خیرٌ من التأکید»، ضوابط کشف نظام معنایی قرآن کریم در باب قراردادها ارائه شد. در ادامه، ضمن طرح و بررسی ماهیت قراردادهای ابضاع، شرکت و مضاربه، و استیفای آیاتِ استشهاد شده به‌عنوان مدرک قرآنی این عقود، روشن شد ‌که در این استشهادها، ضوابط لازم رعایت نشده و استخراج‌ها ناتمام است.

https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77705_df246a39cf0b0651a32d24e5042142b4.pdf

دانشگاه امام صادق علیه‌السلام پژوهش‌نامه حقوق اسلامی 2251-9858 26 3 2025 09 23 The Framework and Components of the Right to Political Protest in the Themes of the Holy Quran چارچوب و مؤلفه‌های حق اعتراض سیاسی در مضامین قرآن کریم 783 814 77532 10.30497/law.2024.246836.3602 FA علی ربیع‌زاده دانش‌آموخته دکتری حقوق عمومی، دانشکده معارف اسلامی و حقوق، دانشگاه امام صادق علیه‌السلام، تهران، ایران. اصغر افتخاری استاد، گروه علوم سیاستگذاری و حکمرانی، دانشکده معارف اسلامی و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه امام صادق علیه‌السلام، تهران، ایران. سعید منصوریان دانشجوی دکتری جامعه‌شناسی سیاسی، دانشکده معارف اسلامی و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه امام صادق علیه‌السلام، تهران، ایران. Journal Article 2024 08 16 ‌ ∴ Introduction ∴ ‌ The right to political protest is a fundamental aspect of civil and political rights within the broader discourse on human rights. As societies globally continue to recognize and defend individuals' rights to dissent against governmental structures, the dynamic between protest and governance gains increasing importance. This right manifests in various forms and intensities across different jurisdictions, including the Islamic Republic of Iran, sparking ongoing debates about its legal, religious, and ethical foundations. In an Islamic context, the Holy Quran serves as the foundational source for doctrinal formulations, legislative principles, and moral guidelines. Its primary authority in shaping Islamic jurisprudence necessitates an exploration of whether and to what extent Quranic themes address the right to political protest. This inquiry not only sheds light on the religious legitimacy of protest but also examines the Quranic approach to regulating both the act of protesting and the responses of those in power. Understanding the Quranic perspective can provide significant insights for Islamic legal frameworks and inform the development of human rights policies rooted in Quranic principles. This article aims to identify Quranic concepts related to the status, scope, and governance of political protest. It reflects on the conditions of protesters, examples of legitimate and illegitimate protests, and the corresponding responsibilities of governments. The originality of this study lies in its systematic and thematic analysis of the entire Quran regarding protest rights, moving beyond the fragmented discussions often found in existing literature. ‌ ∴ Research Question ∴ ‌ To clarify the Quranic stance on the right to political protest, this research centers on one primary question: What themes does the Holy Quran present regarding the right to political protest and its status? Additionally, two subsidiary questions guide the study's detailed exploration: Does the Holy Quran recognize the right to political protest? What are the components and regulations for exercising the right to political protest in legitimate (divine) governments versus illegitimate (tyrannical) governments from a Quranic perspective? These questions collectively aim to illuminate how protest—defined here as a form of public engagement in political affairs—emerges from and interacts with the fundamental tenets of Islam. ‌ ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ ‌ While this study does not seek to test hypotheses in the conventional empirical sense, it operates under the guiding premise that the Holy Quran, as a primary source of Islamic jurisprudence, provides thematic guidance on political protest. Specifically, it is assumed that the Quran acknowledges protest as a civic and moral responsibility and stipulates parameters for its legitimate expression within an Islamic society. ‌ ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ ‌ This study employs a foundational, analytical research design, grounded in thematic analysis of Quranic verses and complemented by references to authoritative exegeses. The research process begins with a thorough review of specialized sources—such as scholarly works on the right to political protest and established Islamic jurisprudential texts—to delineate pertinent concepts. After establishing an operational definition of political protest in this context, the study systematically examines the entirety of the Quran, identifying verses explicitly or implicitly related to themes of dissent, criticism of authority, and societal participation in governance. ‌ ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ ‌ Through a comprehensive thematic exegesis of Quranic verses, this study identifies the underlying principles shaping the right to political protest within an Islamic framework. Utilizing the narratives of Saul [Talut] and Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) as illustrative examples, the research reveals how political protest arises in contexts where authority figures, governance structures, or broader societal conditions necessitate critical evaluation and reform. One central finding indicates that the Quran not only acknowledges but also legitimizes the act of political protest under specific parameters. This recognition is based on the preservation of social welfare and the pursuit of justice, suggesting that protest should be channeled through constructive means rather than destructive or violent actions. In particular, verses related to Talut emphasize how communal deliberation and questioning leadership decisions can serve as a corrective mechanism within society. Similarly, the account of Moses (peace be upon him) confronting Pharaoh’s tyranny underscores the moral imperative to resist oppressive governance and highlights the significance of collective mobilization against injustice. From these narratives, clear distinctions emerge between protest in legitimate (divine) governments and in illegitimate (tyrannical) governments. In systems deemed divine, protest functions as a collaborative process aimed at refining governance through consultation and moral guidance. Conversely, in tyrannical contexts, protest becomes a necessary tool for safeguarding fundamental rights and exposing illegitimate power. The discussion reveals that the Quranic approach advocates a balance between protecting civic freedoms and maintaining social cohesion, emphasizing principles such as respect for human dignity, nonviolence, and fostering communal unity. When situated within robust legal and moral frameworks, protest acts as a safeguard against corruption and a catalyst for social improvement. ‌ ∴ Conclusion ∴ ‌ This research examines political protest as both “negative” (oppositional) and “reformative” political action. By systematically analyzing Quranic verses through a thematic lens, the study demonstrates that the right to political protest is explicitly recognized, provided it aligns with ethical principles and societal welfare. Two pivotal Quranic narratives—the appointment of Saul [Talut] as ruler and the extensive account of Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) confronting Pharaoh—illuminate the boundaries, objectives, and ethical considerations of protest in diverse political environments. In legitimate (divine) governments, protest is conceptualized as a mechanism for constructive dialogue and policy refinement, emphasizing community input and shared responsibility for governance. The Quran underscores that such protest should remain peaceful, guided by moral imperatives, and avoid infringing on others' rights. In contrast, in contexts characterized by illegitimate, tyrannical regimes, protest becomes not only a right but a moral necessity to challenge oppression and protect individual and collective rights. The Quranic stance emphasizes that standing against injustice is integral to Islamic teachings, advocating for both civil resistance and a commitment to the broader pursuit of justice. The applicability of these findings is particularly relevant in jurisdictions where Islamic tenets, including Article 4 of the constitution in the Islamic Republic of Iran, influence legal and political structures. Incorporating the Quranic framework into political and legal cultural development, citizenship education, and participatory governance offers viable pathways toward enhancing civic engagement and upholding human rights. Moreover, such integration provides a criterion for evaluating existing policies and legal measures, facilitating an ongoing process of reform aimed at realizing the Quranic vision of social justice and ethical governance. حق اعتراض سیاسی از مهم‌ترین مصادیق نسل اوّل حقوق بشر یعنی حقوق مدنی و سیاسی قلمداد می‌شود که در اسناد و معاهدات بین‌المللی مورد شناسایی واقع شده است. اعتراض سیاسی با توجه به حساسیت‌های بسیاری که نسبت به آن وجود دارد، در طیف گسترده‌ای از تعاریف بررسی شده است که حد مشترک همه آن‌ها، شناسایی اعتراض سیاسی به‌عنوان نوعی کنش جمعی سلبی و انتقادی، با هدف اثرگذاری بر وضع موجود نظام حقوقی و سیاسی و یا کنشگران آن است. علی‌هذا بررسی این حق، مبانی و مؤلفه‌های آن در قرآن کریم به‌عنوان مهم‌ترین منبع فقه اسلامی و نقش آن در پایه‌ریزی حقوق بشر اسلامی، از ضرورت و اهمیت بسیار برخوردار است؛ به‌ویژه آن‌که پیشینه قابل‌توجه و روشمندی میان آثار علمی موجود در این زمینه وجود ندارد. بر همین اساس، سؤال اصلی پژوهش حاضر عبارت است از اینکه «قرآن کریم چه مضامینی پیرامون حق اعتراض سیاسی و جایگاه آن ارائه می‌کند؟» برای پاسخ به این سؤال بنیادین، از روش تحلیل مضمون برای تحلیل داده‌ها استفاده شده و این نتیجه حاصل گردیده است که اولاً در قرآن کریم حق اعتراض سیاسی به‌رسمیت شناخته شده است، ثانیاً اعتراض سیاسی در چارچوبی اصلاحی و کاملاً متمایز با هرگونه اقدام رادیکال، خشن و تضییع‌کننده حق‌الناس و حقوق عمومی مطرح شده و ثالثاً ضمن تفکیک انواع حکومت‌ها در قرآن کریم، در حکومت‌های مشروع شیوه گفتگومحور و اقناعی اعتراض، ضرورت استماع مطالبات معترضان و پاسخگویی به ایشان از سوی حکومت، و در حکومت‌های نامشروع ضرورت اعتراض و مطالبه‌گری مستقیم سیاسی از سوی مردم و گفتگوی اقناعی با حکومت و افکار عمومی و لزوم آشنایی با ابزارهای حکومت‌های نامشروع برای تضییع حق اعتراض سیاسی مورد تائید قرآن کریم قرار گرفته است.

https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77532_18d9e48fdb274070c3b5db7514291819.pdf

دانشگاه امام صادق علیه‌السلام پژوهش‌نامه حقوق اسلامی 2251-9858 26 3 2025 09 23 An Analysis of the Relationship Between the Theory of Ownership in the Islamic Legal System and the Theory of Obligations in the Contemporary Romano-Germanic Legal System تحلیلی بر نسبت نظریه ملکیت در نظام حقوقی اسلام و نظریه تعهدات در نظام حقوقی رومی ژرمنی معاصر 815 860 77539 10.30497/law.2025.247051.3634 FA مصطفی کربلائی آقازاده دانش‌آموخته دکتری حقوق خصوصی، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه مفید، قم، ایران. 0000-0001-5394-5671 جلیل قنواتی دانشیار، گروه حقوق خصوصی، دانشکده حقوق، دانشکدگان فارابی، دانشگاه تهران، قم، ایران. نعمت‌الله الفت استادیار، گروه حقوق خصوصی، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه مفید، قم، ایران. Journal Article 2024 09 27 ‌ ∴ Introduction ∴ ‌ The interplay between property law and the law of obligations has long been a focal point in legal theory across different jurisdictions. In Romano-Germanic legal systems, scholars have traditionally distinguished two main categories—property law (governing the acquisition, transfer, and termination of ownership) and the law of obligations (focusing on the creation, modification, and extinguishment of obligations). Within this framework, contract law and civil liability are treated as subcategories under the law of obligations, separate and distinct from property law. This clear conceptual demarcation derives from the fundamental differentiation between real (absolute) rights and personal (relative) rights. Real rights impose legal duties on the entire world to respect the owner’s exclusive interest in a thing, whereas personal rights establish obligations only between specific parties, as in contracts or civil liability cases. By contrast, in the Islamic legal system, many preeminent scholars have advanced a general theory of obligations that includes contracts and civil liabilities. However, the authors of the present study contend that Islamic law instead centers legal relationships primarily on contracts and quasi-contractual liabilities (extra-contractual liabilities). Their argument is that these categories share a deep connection with property law through the overarching theory of ownership—or more specifically, the theory of the transfer of ownership. In other words, Islamic law sees ownership as the cornerstone for explaining how contracts and civil liability operate, while Romano-Germanic law has historically viewed them in a separate sphere known as the law of obligations. Modern legal developments in the Romano-Germanic sphere, however, reveal a trend that blurs the once-bright line separating property law from the law of obligations. Increasingly, legal doctrines treat certain personal rights, particularly those arising from contracts and civil liabilities, as capable of directly effecting ownership without an intervening, independent “obligation” stage. In doing so, the Romano-Germanic systems exhibit a convergence toward the Islamic conception of property rights, suggesting that contract law and civil liability can be reclassified under the umbrella of property law. Against this backdrop, this article investigates how personal rights in contract and civil liability contexts may function similarly to ownership rights, thereby prompting a reevaluation of classical classifications. This inquiry culminates in a comparative analysis of how both systems organize legal relationships, hoping to clarify ongoing debates about the primacy of obligations versus ownership. ‌ ∴ Research Question ∴ ‌ The core question driving this study is: Under what conditions and by what legal mechanisms can the outcome of a legal source—be it a contract, unilateral act (unilateral obligation), or quasi-contractual obligation (extra-contractual liability)—be categorized as ownership, and how do these outcomes and effects align with or diverge from the theory of ownership in Islamic law and the notion of obligations in the Romano-Germanic tradition? By systematically examining the legal underpinnings of ownership versus obligation, the study aims to reveal whether personal rights, once strictly confined to the law of obligations, have begun to shift meaningfully toward direct claims in property law. More specifically, it seeks to identify the reasons behind, and the practical consequences of, reclassifying contracts and civil liability as subcategories of property law. This question emerges from the larger scholarly debate regarding the convergence of different legal systems. Examining cases where personal rights, such as those generated by contracts or extra-contractual liabilities, can effectively transfer ownership points to a possible unification or harmonization of diverse legal doctrines. The study thereby highlights how each legal tradition might enrich its theoretical constructs and practical applications by appreciating alternative approaches. ‌ ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ ‌ Based on preliminary doctrinal analysis and comparative observations, this article hypothesizes that a convergence is unfolding between the Islamic concept of ownership-based legal relationships and the Romano-Germanic concept of obligations-based legal relationships. Initially, Romano-Germanic civil codes separated real and personal rights so strictly that contract law and civil liability naturally fell under the law of obligations, effectively segregating them from property law. Islamic law, conversely, has given primacy to ownership as the definitive concept underpinning contracts and quasi-contractual liabilities. As Romano-Germanic systems evolve, however, personal rights created by contracts or civil liabilities are no longer universally confined to the realm of relative obligations. Rather, they increasingly exhibit a capacity to directly generate or affect real rights. This shift may not be uniform across all legal systems or circumstances, but it does suggest that the earlier bright-line distinction between real and personal rights has softened. If this hypothesis is borne out, it would imply that modern legal thought in the Romano-Germanic tradition has moved closer to the Islamic theory of ownership, recognizing a more integrated relationship between obligation and property than before. In turn, this realignment might offer Islamic law renewed theoretical insights on the nuances of obligations, especially where ownership and personal rights intersect. ‌ ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ ‌ To investigate these questions and test the hypothesis, this article adopts a doctrinal and comparative methodology. The research begins by systematically examining primary and secondary legal sources in both the Romano-Germanic and Islamic traditions. The doctrinal analysis includes an in-depth review of statutory provisions, judicial precedents, and scholarly commentaries that have shaped classical and modern understandings of ownership and obligations. In this phase, the study draws on authoritative treatises and commentaries to elucidate each system’s fundamental tenets: the bifurcation of property law and the law of obligations in Romano-Germanic systems, and the central role of ownership in Islamic legal theory. Building on this doctrinal groundwork, a comparative approach identifies points of convergence and divergence. Specifically, the research investigates how each tradition conceptualizes the formation of ownership and how contractual or extra-contractual liabilities may affect proprietary interests. ‌ ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ ‌ The results highlight a clear divergence yet a subtle convergence between the Romano-Germanic and Islamic legal systems in terms of how they classify and link property law to the law of obligations. Several key findings emerge: First, in the Romano-Germanic legal tradition, real rights and personal rights have historically occupied two distinct spheres. Real rights are understood to be absolute, binding all third parties, and primarily govern the legal relationship between a person and a thing. Meanwhile, personal rights are relative, binding only specific parties (obligee and obligor) within the context of obligations. This conceptual demarcation has led to a structural separation of private law into property law (centered on real rights) and the law of obligations (governing personal rights). Within this framework, contracts and civil liability are classified as subbranches of the law of obligations. Property rights are transferred through a two-step process—one step creating the legal obligation to transfer, and another effecting the actual transfer of ownership (for instance, through delivery or registration in the land registry). The results confirm that, under classical interpretations, this two-tier structure ensures that the validity or invalidity of the obligation does not necessarily affect the validity of the subsequent property transfer. Consequently, if a contractual obligation is later deemed void, the conveyance of the property may still stand. This conceptual distinction is particularly evident in legal systems influenced by German civil law, where the abstract principle of conveyance—separating the “real” contract from the underlying obligation—has been deeply ingrained. Second, the Islamic legal tradition approaches the matter from a different angle. Here, many classical and contemporary scholars maintain that the primary subjects of private law revolve around contracts and quasi-contractual (extra-contractual) liabilities rather than distinct categories of property law versus obligations. In other words, Islamic legal discourse tends to embed property law questions—such as the acquisition, use, and transfer of ownership—within broader discussions of contractual and liability frameworks. This finding is particularly significant because it underscores the causal (substantive) system that often permeates Islamic jurisprudence: a transfer of ownership is typically understood as resulting directly from the validity of the underlying contract or liability. Ownership does not stand apart as an abstract concept waiting for a secondary act of transfer; rather, the transfer of ownership is seen as causally linked to the parties’ consent and the lawful conclusion of the contract or quasi-contractual relationship. Third, the research illustrates that despite these profound structural differences, modern developments in Romano-Germanic law have begun to bring obligations into closer alignment with property rights. As various legal systems adapt to the complexities of international commerce and increasingly sophisticated financial instruments, a purely abstract separation of real and personal rights sometimes proves too rigid. Notably, the concept of personal rights capable of generating proprietary effects has gained traction, signaling a convergence toward a more ownership-centric perspective. Some jurisdictions, for instance, have created legal mechanisms allowing a contractual agreement itself to pass ownership without the need for a separate, formal act of conveyance. This is a significant break from the strict classical model and reflects the rising influence of more “causal” legal doctrines, paralleling aspects of Islamic legal theory. Furthermore, the analysis confirms that Islamic law’s expansive definition of property, which includes both tangible and intangible components—ranging from physical assets to usufruct rights—positions ownership as a broad and nuanced concept. This broad concept of property, subdivided into categories such as specific property, fungible property, and various forms of usufruct, facilitates the notion that ownership transfers are embedded within and directly contingent upon the substance of contracts or quasi-contractual obligations. In sum, the overarching result is a recognition that the Romano-Germanic reliance on strict divisions is gradually yielding to more flexible, integrated approaches. The once well-demarcated boundary between real rights and personal rights has begun to blur, allowing for an expanded notion of property law—one that might, in due course, encompass many aspects of what were previously considered purely obligation-based relationships. This shift effectively draws nearer to the Islamic legal theory of ownership, where ownership transfer is central and intimately tied to the contract or liability itself. ‌ ∴ Conclusion ∴ ‌ Based on the distinction between real rights and personal rights—where real rights are absolute and enforceable against everyone, and personal rights are relative and enforceable only against the obligor—in the Romano-Germanic legal system, real rights form the foundation of property law, while personal rights constitute the foundation of the law of obligations. This distinction divides private law in the Romano-Germanic legal system into two opposing parts: property law and the law of obligations, with half devoted to property law and the other half to obligations. Under this division, the law of obligations addresses the creation, modification, and extinction of obligations, while property law focuses on the acquisition, transfer, and extinction of property rights. Influenced by long-standing traditions, where for centuries mere intent could not transfer real rights—a principle still upheld in some countries under this legal system—the dominant theory has been the general theory of obligations, under which contracts and civil liability are categorized as subfields. The transfer of real rights, i.e., property rights, is traditionally treated as comprising two distinct legal acts: the “real contract,” which creates an obligation, and the “transfer act,” executed through delivery for movable property or registration in the land registry for immovable property. Within this schema, the general understanding in the Romano-Germanic legal system is that contract law and civil liability fall under the law of obligations, and their relationship with property law—governed by an abstract system—remains largely independent. Thus, the obligation arising from a contract does not necessarily impact the validity of the transfer act. Even if the obligation to transfer is deemed void or voidable, the transfer itself may remain valid. German civil law exemplifies this clear separation between the law of obligations (which includes contracts and civil liability) and property law. Contrary to the prevalent view among prominent Islamic and Iranian legal scholars—who argue for the dominance of the division between property law and the law of obligations within the scope of contracts and quasi-contractual obligations (extra-contractual liabilities) in Islamic law—the findings presented here show that Islamic law primarily studies contracts and quasi-contractual obligations as the main categories for interpersonal relationships. Discussions of property law and the law of obligations appear as secondary considerations, with their relationship governed by a causal or substantive system, rather than a separate or purely abstract one. In Islamic jurisprudence, an expansive concept of property—initially divided into corporeal property and usufruct—further subdivides corporeal property into specific property, fungible property tied to specific items, and fungible property tied to obligations, and divides usufruct into object usufruct, human usufruct, and animal usufruct. All these fall under the category of property law. Coupled with an equally expansive concept of ownership—differentiating between absolute and partial ownership—this framework underscores that Islamic law’s prevailing theory linking contracts and quasi-contractual obligations to the secondary category of property law is the general theory of ownership, or more specifically, the theory of transfer of ownership. However, contemporary developments within the Romano-Germanic legal system suggest a move toward a more fluid relationship between real rights and personal rights. As property law expands and obligations increasingly appear as a subset of property law, the traditional distinctions between real rights and personal rights begin to dissolve. This evolving perspective implies that the distinction between real rights and personal rights may ultimately parallel the distinction between absolute and partial ownership in Islamic law—effectively recasting contract law and civil liability as integral aspects of property law. Consequently, the Romano-Germanic legal system appears to be inching toward a structure in which ownership becomes the core of civil law, echoing key elements of the Islamic legal approach and illustrating a striking convergence in theoretical underpinnings across these two historically distinct legal families. بر اساس دیدگاه سنتی حاکم در نظام حقوقی رومی ژرمنی، که در حقوق تعهدات از ایجاد، تبدیل و سقوط تعهد بحث می‌شود، قرارداد و مسئولیت مدنی جزئی از «حقوق تعهدات» محسوب شده‌اند. قسیم حقوق تعهدات در این دیدگاه، «حقوق اموال» است که در آن از تحصیل، انتقال و سقوط ملکیت بحث می‌شود. جدایی قرارداد و مسئولیت مدنی از باب حقوق اموال که بازگشت به جدایی حقوق شخصی از حقوق عینی در نظام حقوقی رومی ژرمنی دارد، از نقاط مهم افتراق نظریه سنتی تعهدات رومی ژرمنی و نظریه ملکیت در نظام حقوقی اسلام است؛ زیرا در نظام حقوقی اسلام، تمایز اصلی میان دسته‌های عام عقود و ضمانات قهری است که رابطه آن‌ها با حقوق اموال به‌عنوان دسته فرعی، جدا نیست. آنچه از فقه اسلامی و قانون ایران استنباط می‌شود، این است که گفتمان حاکم بر حقوق اموال به‌عنوان دسته فرعی در ارتباط با دسته‌های اصلی عقود و ضمانات قهری، نظریه عمومی ملکیت یا به‌تعبیری نظریه عمومی تملیک است. در نظام سنتی رومی ژرمنی، «قرارداد» و «مسئولیت مدنی» به‌عنوان بخش‌هایی از حقوق تعهدات، جدا از «حقوق اموال» محسوب می‌شوند؛ امّا طی تحولات رخ‌داده معاصر و با اعتباری‌گشتن رابطه اشخاص با دسته‌های اموال و از بین رفتن تمایزات میان «حق عینی» و «حق شخصی»، دیگر رابطه قراردادی و مسئولیت مدنی از حقوق اموال جدا نیست؛ بنابراین، می‌توان ادعا کرد نظام حقوقی رومی ژرمنی با گذر از نظریه «تعهد» در حقوق قرارداد و مسئولیت مدنی به‌سمت مفهومی نزدیک به نظریه «ملکیت» در حقوق اسلام می‌رود که مباحث قرارداد و مسئولیت مدنی عموماً در دسته‌های کوچک‌تر به‌عنوان بخشی از نظریه عمومی ملکیت، به بیان «تحصیل»، «انتقال» و «سقوط» ملکیت می‌پردازند.

https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77539_d7b392de687e1a5daa6b7322cd49512f.pdf

دانشگاه امام صادق علیه‌السلام پژوهش‌نامه حقوق اسلامی 2251-9858 26 3 2025 09 23 Formulation of the Effects of the Mora'a Contract in Islamic Law and the Iranian Legal Order صورت‌بندی آثار عقد مراعی در فقه امامیه و حقوق ایران 861 896 77648 10.30497/law.2025.247521.3682 FA جواد نیک‌نژاد دانشیار، گروه حقوق خصوصی، دانشکده علوم انسانی، واحد تهران غرب، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران. 0000-0003-1956-1484 Journal Article 2025 01 05 ‌ ∴ Introduction ∴ ‌ The concept of the Mora’a contract in Islamic jurisprudence centers on a scenario where all the substantive elements of a contract have been fulfilled, yet its continued enforceability remains uncertain due to a legal barrier. This barrier often stems from a third party’s right attached to the contract’s subject matter, such as the mortgagee’s interest in mortgaged property. Unlike an unenforceable contract—where a deficiency in substantive elements renders the agreement incomplete—a Mora’a contract is substantively valid but temporarily obstructed from taking full effect. Traditionally, Islamic jurists and legal scholars offer divergent views: some characterize Mora’a as a subset of unenforceable contracts, while others regard it as a distinct category on par with valid, void, or unenforceable agreements. This dichotomy has significant legal implications regarding the rights of third parties and the parties to the contract. By examining these distinctions, it becomes clear that Mora’a raises fundamental questions not just about classification but also about the temporal effects of contractual obligations and remedies in Islamic and Iranian legal systems. The present discussion aims to clarify these nuances and build a foundation for deeper analysis of how third-party interests intersect with the otherwise complete formation of a contract. ‌ ∴ Research Question ∴ ‌ This study addresses several interrelated questions pivotal to understanding the legal nature and ramifications of a Mora’a contract. First, does Mora’a qualify as an independent legal status wholly separate from the categories of valid, void, or unenforceable contracts? If not, is it more accurately viewed as a specialized form of unenforceability, or perhaps somewhere between validity and unenforceability? Second, assuming Mora’a is not entirely distinct, what are its principal effects while the third party’s right remains unresolved? In other words, does the contract exert any force between the original parties during the period of uncertainty, or is it deemed legally inert? Finally, the inquiry extends to the ultimate outcome of Mora’a once the third party’s right is asserted or extinguished. ‌ ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ ‌ Building upon the debates in classical and contemporary sources, the hypothesis of this research contends that Mora’a neither constitutes a fully independent legal status nor strictly corresponds to traditional notions of unenforceability within Islamic and Iranian law. Rather, the Mora’a contract is posited as a status that shares certain structural similarities with unenforceable contracts but diverges in key respects. Specifically, while the contract maintains a semblance of validity in its essential components, its capacity to produce enforceable legal obligations is postponed until the third party’s claim is resolved. ‌ ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ ‌ The methodological approach employed in this study is primarily inductive, progressing from a comprehensive survey of authoritative Islamic jurisprudential texts to an examination of statutory provisions and judicial interpretations in Iran. Initially, relevant legal sources—both classical treatises and modern commentaries—are evaluated to extract the theoretical underpinnings of Mora’a and identify its conceptual boundaries relative to validity and unenforceability. Following this doctrinal analysis, illustrative legal cases and judicial precedents are scrutinized to ascertain patterns in how courts have treated contracts burdened by third-party rights. ‌ ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ ‌ The exploration of the Mora’a contract in Islamic jurisprudence and Iranian legal practice reveals nuanced outcomes once a third party’s right is involved. Central to the discussion is the recognition that while all substantive elements of the contract may be properly satisfied, the presence of a legal barrier gives rise to a state of uncertainty. This uncertainty, though, does not imply that the contract is inherently void or unenforceable from its inception. Rather, it underscores a delicate legal equilibrium between respecting the autonomy of the contracting parties and safeguarding the legitimate interests of third parties. A prominent strand of scholarly opinion posits that Mora’a belongs to the category of unenforceable contracts. According to this perspective, the contract is formed subject to the condition that the third party’s right either persists or is eliminated. During this suspended period, the contract is seen as lacking immediate effect. Should the third party decide to exercise their right—by foreclosing on the mortgaged property, for instance—the contract would be retroactively void. Conversely, if the impediment dissolves through repayment or release, the contract is deemed valid ab initio, thus reverting to a fully enforceable agreement from its original date. However, a persuasive line of reasoning, supported by a close reading of classical jurisprudence and judicial precedents, indicates that a Mora’a contract constitutes a validly formed agreement at the outset. The mere presence of a third party’s right does not nullify the core components of offer, acceptance, and the requisite legal capacity of the parties; thus, the contract exists with full legal form. It is only when the third party affirmatively moves to enforce their right that the continuation of the contract would cause tangible harm to them. Islamic legal theory places significant emphasis on the no-harm principle [lā ḍarar], which provides a doctrinal basis for resolving such conflicts. Under this principle, once the third party chooses to assert their right—for example, by insisting on the sale of the mortgaged property to satisfy a debt—the contract that burdens the property is dissolved at that very moment to prevent detriment to the third party. No retroactive voidness is implied, because prior to the exercise of the right, there was no actual harm inflicted upon the third party’s interest. This finding has several critical implications. First, it harmonizes the rights of original contracting parties with those of the third party. By recognizing the contract as valid from its inception, parties can transact with some degree of commercial confidence, thus mitigating the risk of economic stagnation where assets are in limbo. Second, the model aligns with real-world contractual practice, where transactions involving encumbered property are not uncommon. The threat of a third party’s intervention remains a possibility, yet that alone does not negate the contract’s existence or prevent its beneficial use as long as no direct harm is inflicted on the third party’s rights. Third, this interpretation advocates an outcome that is both principled and practical: if the third party never exercises the right, the contract proceeds unhindered; if the third party does act, then the dissolution occurs only from the time of that exercise, ensuring that no undue penalty is imposed on the contracting parties for a period during which they did not infringe upon third-party interests. Judicial Precedents Nos. 810 and 832 of the General Board of the Supreme Court of Iran further reinforce this approach. These rulings confirm that a Mora’a contract is to be treated as valid in the interval prior to the third party’s enforcement of rights. The dissolution, when it occurs, is effective only from the date of the third party’s claim, thus preserving the contract’s validity and legal consequences in the interim. In doing so, the judiciary implicitly endorses an interpretation that values commercial efficacy and economic stability, while also ensuring that the rightful interests of the third party are adequately protected. ‌ ∴ Conclusion ∴ ‌ The findings of this study converge on a single coherent theme: the Mora’a contract, though burdened by the shadow of a third party’s interest, should not be conflated with traditional concepts of unenforceability or positioned as an independent legal status equivalent to valid, void, or unenforceable categories. Rather, it emerges as a contract that is substantively complete and initially effective. The mere existence of a legal impediment—such as a mortgage—does not negate the contract’s validity from its outset. Instead, the impediment introduces a contingent risk: the possibility of dissolution if and when the third party enforces their right. Under this view, the dissolving event arises at the moment the third party asserts their real right. Until that time, the contract produces its ordinary legal effects among the contracting parties, fostering an environment that curtails the economic inefficiencies of immobilized assets. Likewise, the interpretative reliance on the no-harm principle [lā Zarar] underscores an equitable balance: while parties retain the benefits of their transaction, the third party’s prerogative to protect their interest is not diminished, only actualized should they opt to invoke it. By conceptualizing Mora’a in this manner, Islamic jurisprudence and the Iranian legal system incorporate a flexible mechanism that simultaneously acknowledges the legitimacy of the contractual relationship and safeguards third-party rights. «مُراعی» وضعیت حقوقی عقدی است که به‌علت وجود مانع، بقای آن مجهول است؛ مانع مذکور اصولاً تعلق حق ثالث نسبت به مورد معامله است. پاسخ به این دو سوال شایان توجه است که اولاً، آیا مراعی وضعیت حقوقی مستقلی در عرض سایر وضعیت‌های شناخته‌شده حقوقی است؟ ثانیاً، سرنوشت نهایی عقد مراعی در صورت اعمال یا عدم اعمال حق توسط ثالث چیست؟ برخی از حقوقدانان معتقدند که مراعی وضعیت حقوقی مستقلی در کنار سایر وضعیت‌ها است و تا قبل از اعمال یا عدم اعمال حق توسط ثالث، فاقد اثر و معلق است و در صورت اعمال حق توسط ثالث کشف می‌شود که عقد از ابتدا باطل بوده، و در صورت زوال حق ثالث به هر علت، کشف می‌شود که معامله از ابتدا صحیح بوده است. برخی دیگر از حقوقدانان که از عقد مراعی به عدم نفوذ مراعی تعبیر نموده‌اند و آن را قسمی از وضعیت عدم نفوذ می‌دانند، معتقدند که عقد مذکور در صورت اعمال حق توسط ثالث، از همان تاریخ منفسخ می‌گردد. نتیجه حاصل از پژوهش حاضر که با روش توصیفی تحلیلی و رجوع به اقوال فقیهان و حقوقدانان سامان یافته، این است که مراعی نه‌تنها قسمی از عدم نفوذ نبوده، بلکه اساساً وضعیت حقوقی مستقلی نیز نیست. بر خلاف آراء پیش‌گفته، آثار آن نیز معلق نخواهد بود؛ عقد مراعی تا زمانی‌که با اعمال حق توسط ثالث مواجه نشود صحیح و دارای آثار قانونی بوده و در صورت اعمال حق توسط ثالث از همان تاریخ منفسخ می‌شود؛ چه‌اینکه، معامله مالی که متعلق حق ثالث است از ابتدا مقید به اعمال حق وی منعقد شده، و در واقع معامله مذکور مشتمل بر شرط ارتکازی فاسخی است که اعمال حق توسط ثالث، منتهی به انفساخ معامله معارض با حق ثالث خواهد شد.

https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77648_0d2d36fac2de135d671049c8863e7391.pdf

دانشگاه امام صادق علیه‌السلام پژوهش‌نامه حقوق اسلامی 2251-9858 26 3 2025 09 23 A Comparative Study of the Magistrates' Court in the Legal Systems of Iran and England: Structure, Jurisdiction, and Procedure مطالعه تطبیقی «دادگاه صلح» در نظام حقوقی ایران و انگلستان؛ تشکیلات، صلاحیت‌ و آیین دادرسی 897 926 77647 10.30497/law.2025.247287.3655 FA نسرین مهرا استاد، گروه حقوق جزا و جرم‌شناسی، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران. هادی رضوان دانشجوی دکتری حقوق جزا و جرم‌شناسی، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران. 0009-0003-8630-2252 Journal Article 2024 11 16 ‌ ∴ Introduction ∴ ‌ The establishment and operation of Magistrates’ Courts occupy a pivotal role in the administration of justice, reflecting broader efforts to address mounting caseloads, streamline procedures, and reduce costs. In many jurisdictions, these courts handle both criminal and civil matters of relatively lower severity, operating under expedited and less formal processes compared to higher courts. Historically, the Magistrates’ Court model has deep roots in England, with recorded origins dating back to the 11th century and official legislative recognition in the 14th century. By contrast, in Iran, the existence of Magistrates’ Courts has been marked by discontinuities, introduced formally in 1911 but then abolished and later reinstated at various intervals. A renewed interest in the Magistrates’ Court in Iran has emerged with the 2023 Law on “Dispute Resolution Councils,” which reintroduces this judicial body as a critical mechanism for alleviating the caseload burden on other courts, speeding up legal proceedings, and reducing litigation costs. Despite its potential benefits, questions persist regarding the efficacy of this institution in its current form and whether it aligns with international best practices. This study, therefore, explores the comparative experiences of Iran and England to ascertain the organizational, jurisdictional, and procedural attributes that can best serve the objectives of a modern judicial system. ‌ ∴ Research Question ∴ ‌ This research addresses the core question of whether the reintroduced Magistrates’ Courts in Iran, as legislated under the new “Dispute Resolution Councils Law,” can effectively meet the twin goals of expediting judicial processes and reducing both administrative and public costs without compromising the quality of justice. Put differently, do these courts—when evaluated through the lens of England’s longstanding experience—contain the structural, jurisdictional, and procedural elements necessary to fulfill their intended mandate? Furthermore, the study queries what legal, institutional, or procedural reforms might be necessary for the Iranian model to maximize efficiency and preserve fair trial standards. ‌ ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ ‌ The central hypothesis posits that the current iteration of Magistrates’ Courts in Iran, while significant in theory, is still in need of substantial reform to fully achieve its mandate. Specifically, the authors hypothesize that certain procedural mechanisms and jurisdictional definitions are either underdeveloped or insufficiently aligned with well-tested comparative frameworks, thereby limiting the courts’ capacity for expedient yet fair adjudication. By drawing on the established operations of England’s Magistrates’ Courts, this study anticipates that targeted legislative and procedural modifications will be essential for ensuring these courts deliver on their promises of efficiency and cost-effectiveness. ‌ ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ ‌ To investigate these questions and test the hypothesis, the study employs a doctrinal and comparative research design. Primary and secondary legal sources—statutes, regulations, judicial decisions, and academic commentaries—are analyzed through library-based research methods. The comparative framework involves a structured examination of three core dimensions: (a) organization and administrative structure, (b) substantive and procedural jurisdiction, and (c) procedural processes and safeguards. England’s experience serves as the comparative benchmark, given its deep historical tradition of Magistrates’ Courts and their well-documented evolution. By systematically evaluating these dimensions in both jurisdictions, the study aims to identify specific areas for reform and improvement. ‌ ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ ‌ The comparative examination of Magistrates’ Courts in Iran and England reveals several noteworthy findings regarding their organizational structure, jurisdiction, and procedural frameworks. First, both legal systems share a similar objective in establishing Magistrates’ Courts: to expedite judicial processes, reduce the burden on higher courts, and minimize legal costs for both the state and the parties involved. This alignment stems from a recognition that swift and efficient resolution of relatively minor legal matters is essential to a well-functioning judiciary. However, the historical contexts in which these courts have evolved, and the ways in which their mandates have been defined, vary considerably between the two countries. From a structural viewpoint, one of the most significant differences lies in the background and qualifications of the magistrates or judges. England’s long-established tradition employs lay magistrates—individuals without formal legal education—in the majority of its Magistrates’ Courts, supported as needed by legal advisers. This approach capitalizes on community involvement and local knowledge, while simultaneously relieving the higher courts and professionally trained judges. Iran’s model, on the other hand, involves legally trained judges who are official members of the judiciary. Given the Iranian legal culture and the emphasis on formal legal qualifications, professional judges are seen as enhancing procedural rigor and public confidence, even though such an arrangement might reduce some of the cost savings and local integration that characterize the English system. Jurisdictional scope also differs markedly. While England entrusts its Magistrates’ Courts with over 90% of criminal cases—primarily lower-level offenses—thus making them critical to the functioning of the entire criminal justice system, Iran’s Magistrates’ Courts play a more constrained role. In Iran, only minor offenses and smaller civil disputes fall within their remit, reflecting a more cautious approach to delegating judicial authority. This limited jurisdiction could be linked to Iran’s intermittent historical experience with Magistrates’ Courts and the absence of a deeply rooted social acceptance or cultural familiarity with them. Procedurally, England’s Magistrates’ Courts have developed a series of well-tested mechanisms to accelerate proceedings and reduce expenses, such as simplified evidence rules and plea-based resolutions. Iran, while aiming to adopt similarly streamlined processes, has occasionally introduced measures—like restricting appeal rights for certain cases or bypassing formal indictments—that risk undermining fair trial principles if not carefully calibrated. The discussion thus centers on identifying reforms that preserve the benefits of quick resolutions while safeguarding defendants’ and victims’ rights, particularly the right to impartial adjudication and the right to appeal. This balance is crucial for ensuring the long-term legitimacy and effectiveness of Magistrates’ Courts in Iran. ‌ ∴ Conclusion ∴ ‌ In terms of function and objectives—at least in theory and legislative intent—the Magistrates’ Courts in Iran and England align. Both systems aim to expedite judicial proceedings and reduce the financial burdens of litigation. However, clear structural differences exist. In England, Magistrates’ Courts predominantly consist of lay judges without formal legal training, a model that reflects a centuries-long tradition of community-driven justice. In contrast, Iran’s Magistrates’ Courts feature judges who are formally educated legal professionals, appointed as official members of the judiciary. Given Iran’s distinct legal and cultural environment, its reliance on professional judges appears both practical and beneficial, as it capitalizes on existing legal expertise and helps foster public trust. Where jurisdiction is concerned, England’s Magistrates’ Courts hold a far more expansive remit—particularly in criminal matters, where they handle the bulk of lesser offenses. Iran’s Magistrates’ Courts, by contrast, exercise relatively narrow authority, limited to select minor offenses and certain civil or administrative matters. This difference underscores a fundamental divergence in the institutional role of Magistrates’ Courts: whereas in England they function as the backbone of the lower criminal justice process, in Iran they serve more as a specialized mechanism to relieve the workload of higher courts. Historically, England’s uninterrupted use of Magistrates’ Courts has also led to robust cultural acceptance. Citizens are generally accustomed to the idea of having lay community members adjudicate low-level cases, which enhances compliance and reduces the rate of appeals. Iran, however, lacks such a longstanding tradition. The institutional history of Magistrates’ Courts in Iran has been sporadic, resulting in less public familiarity and potentially lower confidence in the final judgments. Hence, a broad delegation of authority to a newly reintroduced court system can trigger skepticism, especially if it lacks a strong cultural foundation. Another issue arises from the staffing of these courts by relatively inexperienced judges in Iran. While relying on professional judges enhances legal rigor, younger or less experienced adjudicators may face challenges handling complex issues that occasionally arise in even minor cases. Limiting the scope of criminal jurisdiction and aligning sentencing powers with those of similarly situated courts in other jurisdictions could mitigate these concerns. Moreover, procedural reforms—such as the careful retention of appeal rights, the separation of prosecution and adjudication, and the use of streamlined but still robust evidentiary processes—are critical for guaranteeing fairness. Overall, the reintroduction of Magistrates’ Courts in Iran holds promise for expedited case resolution and cost reduction, but it must be accompanied by carefully calibrated reforms. Specialized branches for distinct case categories, constrained sentencing authority for inexperienced judges, and the preservation of core procedural safeguards would bolster the legitimacy and effectiveness of these courts, thereby enabling them to fulfill their legislatively mandated objectives. افزایش روزافزون شمار پرونده‌های حقوقی در معنای عام، که به افزایش اطاله‌ دادرسی و هزینه‌های نظام‌های قضایی انجامیده است، منجر به ایجاد ضرورت تأمل و ارائه راهکارهایی برای جلوگیری از آفات این دو امر شده است، و در نتیجه نظام‌های قضایی مختلف به سمت استفاده از راهکارهای نظام‌های دیگر و بعضاً راهکارهای بدیع در جهت حل این معضلات حرکت کرده‌اند. نظام قضایی ایران نیز از این امر مستثنا نبوده و در این راستا گام برداشته است، که از جمله آخرین تحولات این حوزه، ایجاد دادگاه‌های صلح در «قانون شوراهای حل اختلاف» مصوب 1402 است. با تأسیس این نهاد در تشکیلات قضایی کشور این سوال ایجاد شده است که آیا این دادگاه می‌تواند در راستای تحقق اهداف فوق، مؤثر باشد؟ لذا در راستای پاسخ به این سوال، در نوشتار حاضر تلاش شده است تا با روش توصیفی تحلیلی، به مطالعه تطبیقی دادگاه صلح در کشور انگلستان به‌عنوان یکی از پرسابقه‌ترین نظام حقوقی در استفاده از این نهاد، به سوال فوق پاسخ داده شود و راهکارهای اصلاح و بهبود عملکرد این نهاد در نظام حقوقی ایران ارائه گردد. حسب نتیجه جستار، به‌نظر می‌رسد که دادگاه صلح در ایران در تحقق اهداف خود دچار چالش خواهد بود و جهت برون‌رفت از این مسأله، نیازمند اصلاح در تشکیلات و آیین دادرسی است.

https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77647_7e0255b8651163d4948becef9591843c.pdf

دانشگاه امام صادق علیه‌السلام پژوهش‌نامه حقوق اسلامی 2251-9858 26 3 2025 09 23 "Recourse to the People" in the Event of Legislative Failure to Enact Essential Laws: A Necessity in the Iranian Legal Order «مراجعه به مردم» در فرض شکست قوه مقننه در وضع قانون دارای ضرورت 927 956 77544 10.30497/law.2025.247164.3643 FA محمدجواد ارسطا دانشیار، گروه حقوق عمومی و بین‌الملل، دانشکده حقوق، دانشکدگان فارابی، دانشگاه تهران، قم، ایران. علیرضا جعفرزاده بهاءآبادی دانشجوی دکتری حقوق عمومی، دانشکده حقوق، دانشکدگان فارابی، دانشگاه تهران، قم، ایران. Journal Article 2024 10 15 ‌ ∴ Introduction ∴ ‌ Legal systems play a crucial role in maintaining societal stability by enacting laws that embody principles of justice and fairness, thereby regulating interpersonal and institutional relationships. In many jurisdictions, this core function is entrusted to legislatures or parliaments, highlighting the importance of legislation in governance. The primary responsibility of the legislature is not only to pass laws that address pressing societal issues but also to ensure that such legislation is timely and effective. In practice, the performance of an assembly in this regard directly influences perceptions of the overall efficiency of the political system. In the Iranian legal framework, the legislature's monopoly on lawmaking entails a dual responsibility: the power to enact legislation and the obligation to do so in response to public interest. This duty aligns with the public's right to an effective and responsive legislature—one that promptly addresses critical legal gaps and safeguards citizens' rights. However, when the legislative process becomes bogged down by political disagreements or conflicts of interest, essential bills may be stalled or neglected, resulting in detrimental gaps within the legal system. Over time, such stalemates can erode public trust in governance and cause tangible harm to society. This issue is particularly pronounced in Iran, where there is often consensus on the need to enact or amend specific laws, yet actual legislative progress is hindered by divergent agendas. For example, while the Constitution of Iran provides mechanisms for addressing emergencies, as outlined in principle 79, these measures focus on imposing necessary restrictions during crises rather than offering solutions to legislative voids. In this context, a central question arises: does the public, through referendums, electoral channels, or other forms of direct involvement, possess a constitutionally recognized capacity to intervene and remedy legislative failures? Furthermore, this article explores whether such intervention aligns with or diverges from the existing principles of the Islamic Republic’s “semi-direct democracy” model, which attributes ultimate sovereignty to God while relying on popular will for practical governance. ‌ ∴ Research Question ∴ ‌ The principal question guiding this study is: To what extent, if any, can the Iranian populace, under the current constitutional framework, exercise direct legislative powers to address the legislature’s failure to enact essential and urgently needed laws? Subsidiary questions arise regarding potential constitutional mechanisms—such as referenda, electoral processes, or newly proposed models like the “popular initiative”—that might enable citizens to break legislative deadlocks. Specifically, the research examines whether the Supreme Leader’s authority to issue certain decrees provides a viable avenue for mitigating legislative inaction, and if so, how this authority intersects with the public’s right to a timely and effective legislative process. Ultimately, this investigation probes whether direct public participation is a permissible remedy or whether the existing constitutional architecture restricts such recourse. ‌ ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ ‌ The working hypothesis of this research posits that the current constitutional framework of the Islamic Republic of Iran does not fully allow for comprehensive direct public participation in legislative processes when the legislature fails to enact critical legislation. While the Constitution acknowledges the role of the public’s vote and outlines specific instances for referenda, these provisions are limited by extensive procedural prerequisites and political considerations. Consequently, the realization of the public’s right to timely legislation remains constrained. However, the analysis further hypothesizes that, through interpretive expansion or amendments, the Constitution could be read or reformed to recognize a more robust participatory mechanism—such as a formal “popular initiative”—that would help resolve legislative deadlocks without unduly compromising constitutional principles. Simultaneously, the hypothesis recognizes that the Supreme Leader’s prerogatives, while broad, are primarily intended to address extraordinary circumstances and may not serve as a fully adequate substitute for democratic involvement in legislation. ‌ ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ ‌ Methodologically, this paper adopts a doctrinal research approach, drawing primarily on constitutional texts, legislative procedures, and scholarly commentaries within Iranian legal studies. The doctrinal analysis includes a close examination of the Constitution’s relevant articles—particularly those addressing the legislature’s obligations, the conditions for national referenda, and the Supreme Leader’s sphere of authority. Secondary sources, including interpretive judgments from Iran’s Guardian Council and judicial precedents, are utilized to contextualize potential constitutional interpretations. ‌ ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ ‌ The findings of this study underscore the complex interplay between legislative inaction and constitutional mechanisms designed to preserve public welfare. The constitutional structure of the Islamic Republic of Iran, characterized by a semi-direct democratic model, places formal legislative power in the hands of the legislature while also providing limited channels for popular intervention, namely through electoral processes and referenda. An analysis of these mechanisms reveals that, while they offer some recourse to address legislative inefficiency, their applicability and effectiveness are constrained by procedural requirements, political will, and time-sensitive considerations. First, referenda emerge as a potential path for direct public engagement. In an ideal scenario where the legislature consistently fails to enact or amend urgently needed laws, a referendum can serve as a decisive measure, capturing the electorate’s stance on the necessity or specific content of the legislation in question. This direct approach has the advantage of bypassing legislative deadlocks by vesting decision-making power in the populace. However, the viability of this remedy is limited by constitutional constraints and practical considerations: referenda are time-consuming, require specialized public understanding of complex legal matters, and may not be well-suited to crises needing immediate resolution. Moreover, the advisory nature of some referenda procedures can dilute their binding effect, diminishing their role as a strong remedy for legislative impasse. Second, an alternative mechanism involves the structural design of the legislature. In bicameral systems, legislative impasses might be overcome through joint committees or repeated rounds of deliberation, and, in extreme cases, through the dissolution of one or both chambers. In the Iranian unicameral context, however, such solutions do not seamlessly translate. While the idea of dissolving the legislature and holding new elections could, in theory, break a deadlock, it introduces political and practical uncertainties. Notably, the Supreme Leader’s constitutional power to call for a “political referendum” regarding the legislature’s dissolution constitutes a unique remedy, but deploying such a potent measure for issues of legislative inaction remains a matter of constitutional debate. Third, from a doctrinal standpoint, the Supreme Leader’s authority under Article 110 of the Constitution to address systemic crises provides another safety valve. This might entail directing the Expediency Discernment Council to formulate or adopt a legislative measure in urgent cases, thereby filling voids that threaten public welfare. Yet, this approach raises questions about balancing swift executive or supreme authority interventions with the principles of popular sovereignty and legislative autonomy. Finally, the discussion highlights that long-term solutions may require constitutional reforms to incorporate a “popular initiative” mechanism. Unlike referenda initiated from above, popular initiatives would grant citizens the right to propose legislation directly. If designed with sufficient procedural safeguards, such initiatives could ensure that critical public concerns are addressed promptly without undermining established institutions. ‌ ∴ Conclusion ∴ ‌ In conclusion, while theoretical avenues exist for the public to intervene in legislative failings—primarily through referenda or by relying on the Supreme Leader’s constitutional authority—these routes face significant practical and procedural hurdles. The semi-direct democratic system of Iran, as currently constituted, limits formal opportunities for citizens to initiate and shape legislation. This limitation is particularly evident when legislative stagnation arises from factors such as political disputes, time-consuming deliberations, or a lack of consensus among representatives. Referenda, although potentially decisive, often prove cumbersome in urgent situations due to the time required for organization and the specialized expertise needed from the public. Similarly, dissolving the legislature to address every instance of inaction may be an extreme measure that destabilizes governance. The Supreme Leader’s authority to issue a decree under Article 110—mandating the Expediency Discernment Council to pass required legislation—can offer a swift solution, but it risks bypassing the representative framework and curtailing the legislature’s central role. Thus, this research concludes that while direct public engagement through referenda might theoretically resolve legislative deadlocks, its effectiveness is questionable given the constitutional and practical limitations. Above all, such recourse should remain a last resort; more fundamental reforms are needed to harness popular will consistently and constructively. Introducing a legally recognized “popular initiative”—whereby citizens could propose and vote on urgent legislative measures—would represent a forward-looking approach, bridging the gap between prolonged legislative deadlock and the immediate societal need for effective legal responses, thereby upholding the broader principles of public interest and constitutional order. ناکامی مجلس قانون‌گذار در وضع قوانین حیاتی و موردنیاز جامعه، خطری جدی است که نتیجه قطعی آن تضییع حق شهروندان بر قوه مقننه کارآمد خواهد بود؛ لذا از یک نظام حقوقی انتظار می‌رود که برای برون‌رفت از این وضعیت، راهکارهای درخوری پیش‌بینی کند. پژوهش حاضر، پاسخ‌گویی به این سوال را در دستور کار دارد که «آیا در نظام حقوقی ایران مردم می‌توانند خود مجرایی برای تحقق حق خود یعنی برخورداری از تقنینِ به‌هنگام باشند؟» بی‌گمان مراجعه مستقیم به آحاد مردم می‌تواند یک راهکار بالقوه در این راستا باشد؛ در نظام حقوق اساسی ایران امّا، این راهکار تنها از مجرای همه‌پرسی اعم از تقنینی، اساسی و سیاسی متصور است که می‌توان گزینش‌گری را نیز بدان الحاق نمود. البته دور از نظر نیست که به‌دلایل متعددی از قبیل زمان‌بر بودن فرآیند مشارکت مردم در اظهارنظر و قطعی نبودن تأثیر آن در حل بحران خلأ قانون ضروری، محتوای کنونی قانون اساسی ظرفیت مؤثری از مردم در حل این معضل به‌دست نمی‌دهد. در قانون اساسی مطلوب، می‌توان از طریق پیش‌بینی راهکار ابتکار عام و علاج مشکل اطاله فرآیند مشارکت، برای مردم در حل معضل مزبور نقش لازم را تعیین کرد. به‌نظر می‌رسد در صورت عدم امکان مراجعه به مردم، به‌کارگیری رهبری از صلاحیت بند هشتم اصل یکصد و دهم قانون اساسی و صدور حکم حکومتی، مؤثرترین راهکار در چارچوب فعلی قانون اساسی برای رفع خلأ قانون ضروری و پایان دادن به ناکارآمدی قوه مقننه باشد.

https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77544_aa2c5c26c24ff8604ec5729a92244c05.pdf

دانشگاه امام صادق علیه‌السلام پژوهش‌نامه حقوق اسلامی 2251-9858 26 3 2025 09 23 A Feasibility Study of Trading Digital Assets in the Metaverse from the Perspective of Islamic Law: An Exploration of the Potential Gharar (Ambiguity) Issue امکان‌سنجی معامله دارایی‌های دیجیتال در بستر متاورس؛ کاوشی در شبهه غرری بودن آن 957 1000 77547 10.30497/law.2025.247354.3659 FA فرشته امیرآبادی فراهانی دانشجوی دکتری حقوق خصوصی، دانشکده حقوق، واحد تهران مرکزی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران. مهشید سادات طبائی استادیار، گروه حقوق، دانشکده حقوق، واحد تهران مرکزی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران. علیرضا شمشیری استادیار، گروه حقوق، دانشکده حقوق، واحد تهران مرکزی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران.‌ Journal Article 2024 11 29 ‌ ∴ Introduction ∴ ‌ The metaverse, a rapidly expanding virtual world, has evolved into a domain that significantly influences numerous aspects of human life, ranging from social interactions to complex economic transactions. In this immersive digital environment, users can buy, sell, and exchange a variety of intangible assets, including virtual land, digital artworks, avatars, and non-fungible tokens (NFTs). As the metaverse becomes increasingly integral to global commerce, it necessitates a legal framework that accounts for both its unique attributes and the enduring principles of contract law. From an Islamic legal perspective, the legitimacy of contracts hinges on the satisfaction of several requirements: the intention and consent of contracting parties, their legal capacity, the legitimacy of the transaction’s purpose, and most importantly, the unambiguous definition of the subject matter. The central challenge in metaverse transactions lies in verifying the nature and value of digital assets that do not possess a tangible counterpart. Unlike traditional commodities, these assets exist entirely in a virtual form, which can introduce elements of uncertainty and lead to potential disputes. One of the core doctrines in Islamic law that addresses uncertainty is the concept of an uncertain transaction [Gharar]. Gharar refers to excessive ambiguity or risk arising from incomplete information or the uncertain outcome of contractual obligations. Given the intangible and abstract characteristics of metaverse assets, questions arise about whether such transactions inherently involve Gharar to a degree that might invalidate the contract under Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh). This article aims to provide a foundational examination of these issues, thereby shedding light on the feasibility of metaverse transactions from the standpoint of Islamic law. ‌ ∴ Research Question ∴ ‌ The principal research question driving this study is: How does the concept of Gharar apply to the trading of digital assets in the metaverse under Islamic law, and what criteria must be met for these transactions to be considered valid? At the core of this inquiry is determining whether the intangible nature of metaverse assets, combined with the evolving technological and contractual frameworks governing their exchange, introduces unacceptable levels of ambiguity. We seek to identify how Islamic jurisprudence can evaluate such novel forms of property and whether additional criteria—beyond those governing traditional contracts—are necessary to ensure contractual legitimacy in the digital realm. ‌ ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ ‌ In light of the underlying principles of Islamic contract law, this study posits the following primary hypothesis: Metaverse transactions, when rendered sufficiently transparent and when the subject matter is recognized by rational agents (i.e., deemed ‘valuable’ in custom), can be established as free from the issue of Gharar and therefore valid under Islamic law. Transparency is central to this hypothesis; clear contractual terms, precise descriptions of digital assets, and verifiable proof of ownership are proposed to address or eliminate uncertainty. Additionally, the study hypothesizes that if the value of a digital asset is objectively recognized by the community of ‘wise’ (or rational) individuals, then the asset meets the legitimacy requirements necessary under Islamic jurisprudence. ‌ ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ ‌ This article adopts a doctrinal research methodology, grounded in both classical and contemporary Islamic jurisprudential sources, to analyze the intricate relationship between metaverse transactions and the principle of Gharar. ‌ ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ ‌ The analysis conducted in this study illuminates several core findings related to the permissibility and validity of metaverse transactions under Islamic law, particularly when examining the potential presence of Gharar (excessive ambiguity). Building upon classical Islamic legal principles and modern technological insights, the results can be summarized in three main thematic areas. First, regarding the nature and legitimacy of digital assets, the study finds that while metaverse items—such as virtual land, non-fungible tokens (NFTs), and other intangible commodities—lack physical existence, they can nonetheless be recognized as valid subject matters of sale. This recognition arises from their measurable and demonstrable value in virtual marketplaces, where supply and demand mirror real-world economic dynamics. The intangible characteristics of these assets do not, by themselves, introduce prohibitive levels of Gharar. Instead, proper identification of each asset’s essential features—e.g., ownership rights, distinctiveness, and utility—plays a decisive role in mitigating ambiguity and establishing a valid basis for transactions. Second, the study’s findings highlight the importance of transparency technologies, such as blockchain, in minimizing uncertainty. Blockchain’s distributed ledger technology ensures verifiability and traceability, thereby reducing the likelihood of hidden defects and undisclosed risks. By creating a tamper-proof record of each transaction, the contracting parties gain clarity and confidence that align with the Shari’ah requirement to eliminate hidden elements of uncertainty. In this regard, the principle of “Nafi al-Gharar” (no-harm principle) can be satisfied when essential information about the asset’s attributes, provenance, and ownership details is readily available and verifiable. Third, custom [‘Urf] and community recognition play pivotal roles in reducing ambiguity. As the study shows, rational individuals—through widespread social and economic practices—have come to accept certain digital assets as possessing real and quantifiable value. By acknowledging these assets as tradeable commodities, the metaverse community effectively sets a standard of transparency and uniform expectations, a concept aligned with Islamic jurisprudential teachings that emphasize communal consensus. Moreover, the “rule of Ibahah” (permissibility) reinforces that any new form of transaction not explicitly forbidden by textual evidence remains permissible, thus validating the buying, selling, and exchanging of metaverse commodities. ‌ ∴ Conclusion ∴ ‌ The findings of this study emphasize that trading digital assets in the metaverse, while inherently novel, need not be mired in excessive ambiguity or uncertainty if properly structured. Customary and Islamic legal principles, serving as two foundational criteria, significantly mitigate such ambiguities. By setting clear and accepted norms grounded in community consensus, these principles offer a powerful framework for ensuring the Shari’ah validity of metaverse transactions. In particular, the “Nafi al-Gharar” principle (prohibition of ambiguity) forms a crucial bulwark against contractual risk, stipulating that any transaction afflicted by uncertainty may be deemed invalid under Islamic law. However, when the intrinsic attributes of digital assets—ranging from NFTs to cryptocurrencies—are thoroughly documented and rendered transparent through blockchain or similar technologies, the element of Gharar is effectively neutralized. Hence, from an Islamic jurisprudential standpoint, such assets become permissible, provided their ownership and usage are unambiguously established. Meanwhile, the rule of Ibahah (permissibility) dictates that in situations where no explicit Shari’ah prohibition exists, the default legal position permits such transactions. Thus, absent a clear textual ban, metaverse dealings in digital assets remain lawful. Reinforcing this stance is the custom of rational individuals [‘Urf al-‘Uqala’], which elevates widespread social acknowledgment of metaverse assets as having genuine economic value. NFTs, virtual lands, and similar items are recognized by communities as holding tangible worth, notwithstanding their digital essence. This collective recognition, documented through transparent technical means, ensures that such assets are not subject to Gharar and upholds their validity in Islamic law. Ultimately, if a rational community deems a specific digital asset as possessing recognized value—and in the absence of explicit scriptural prohibitions—such transactions are acceptable. This alignment between community practice and Islamic jurisprudence fortifies the legitimacy of metaverse transactions, underscoring the practical viability of digital-asset trading under Shari’ah principles. By harnessing technologies that guarantee transparent information and by grounding novel practices in established legal norms, the metaverse stands poised to develop as a robust, Shari’ah-compliant marketplace for the exchange of virtual assets. دارایی‌های دیجیتال نظیر زمین‌های مجازی، آثار هنری دیجیتال و امثال آن‌ها با فراگیری روزافزون و با مقاصد مختلف در بستر متاورس مورد دادوستد قرار می‌گیرند. این پژوهش اولاً به این سوال پاسخ می‌دهد که آیا دارایی‌های مجازی می‌توانند از منظر فقه امامیه و حقوق ایران مورد معامله واقع شوند و ثانیاً، آیا شبهه غرری بودن از ساحت این معاملات قابل زدودن است؟ نگارندگان پس از تبیین مفاهیم اولیه در شرایط صحت معاملات و تطبیق آن‌ها با معاملات دارایی‌های متاورسی، در نهایت نشان داده‌اند که این دارایی‌ها واجد ویژگی‌های لازم بوده و می‌توانند مورد معامله واقع شوند و برای جلوگیری از حدوث غرر، متعاملین باید به‌گونه‌ای رفع ابهام از مورد معامله کنند که جزئیات و ابعاد گوناگون آن به‌وضوح مشخص شود، چرا که ماهیت دیجیتال و انتزاعی دارایی‌ها پیچیدگی‌های خاص و نوینی به همراه دارد.

https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77547_09b3a6de75c64456dfc54169518b5622.pdf

دانشگاه امام صادق علیه‌السلام پژوهش‌نامه حقوق اسلامی 2251-9858 26 3 2025 09 23 An Assessment of the Iranian Legislator’s Performance Regarding the “Limitation of Freedom of Will” in the “Code on Mandatory Official Registration of Real Estate Transactions,” with a Reflection on the Foundations of Islamic Fiqh صحت‌سنجی عملکرد قانون‌گذار نسبت به «تحدید حاکمیت اراده» در «قانون الزام به ثبت رسمی معاملات اموال غیرمنقول» 1001 1030 77593 10.30497/law.2025.247587.3688 FA سیدمحمد اسدی‌نژاد دانشیار، گروه حقوق، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه گیلان، رشت، ایران. جمال نیک‌کار دانشجوی دکتری حقوق خصوصی، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه گیلان، رشت، ایران. Journal Article 2025 01 16 ‌ ∴ Introduction ∴ ‌ The relationship between freedom of will and legal regulation has been a longstanding subject of legal discourse, particularly in the context of contract law. In the Iranian legal system, this relationship is grounded in Articles 190 and 191 of the Iranian Civil Code, which uphold the principle of consensual contracts and individual autonomy. This principle, rooted in the theory of individual freedom, asserts that parties to a contract possess the liberty to form and execute their agreements without external interference, provided there is mutual consent. The broad acceptance of this principle reflects a commitment to minimizing government involvement in private transactions, encouraging economic activity, and supporting social innovation. However, the application of this principle is not without its drawbacks. The unqualified application of contractual autonomy can, in some instances, result in harm to third parties, or fail to protect the interests of weaker contracting parties. Moreover, the lack of formal requirements for certain transactions can lead to inefficiencies, disputes, and an overwhelming caseload for the judiciary. As a response, Iranian lawmakers have imposed limitations on the freedom of will, introducing formal requirements designed to safeguard collective interests, protect public order, and regulate significant social transactions. One notable example of such a restriction is the “Code on Mandatory Official Registration of Real Estate Transactions,” enacted in 2024, which mandates the official registration of real estate transactions for their validity. This study aims to critically examine the rationale behind these formal requirements and evaluate the effectiveness of their implementation in real estate transactions within the Iranian legal framework. ‌ ∴ Research Question ∴ ‌ The main research question that drives this study is: To what extent has the Iranian legislator’s approach to limiting freedom of will in the context of real estate transactions through mandatory official registration effectively achieved its intended objectives? This inquiry is rooted in the concern over the legitimacy and efficacy of imposing formalistic requirements on legal transactions, particularly when the underlying rationale for such formalism is examined within the context of Islamic law and the principle of individual autonomy. Further questions arise concerning the theoretical foundations that shaped the introduction of registration formalities and whether the Iranian legal system has successfully reconciled these formalities with the foundational principles of Islamic law. ‌ ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ ‌ The central hypothesis of this research posits that the imposition of mandatory official registration for real estate transactions is an unavoidable necessity, given the failures of previous legal frameworks that allowed informal agreements to be valid. The study hypothesizes that the introduction of formal requirements aims to address the shortcomings of earlier laws by preventing potential abuses, reducing disputes, and ensuring greater protection for third parties. Despite this, the authors suggest that the legislator’s implementation of formalities in real estate transactions contains inherent deficiencies, which may undermine the effectiveness of the law. This hypothesis aims to challenge the efficiency of the legislator’s approach and calls for a more nuanced reconsideration of the extent to which formalism in real estate transactions is justified within the broader framework of Islamic jurisprudence. ‌ ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ ‌ This study adopts a doctrinal methodology underpinned by an inductive approach to investigate the Iranian legislator’s performance concerning the formal requirements imposed by the Code on Mandatory Official Registration of Real Estate Transactions. The research begins with a theoretical exploration of the principle of consensual contracts, formalism in legal transactions, and the role of government intervention in contract law. By examining these concepts within the context of Shia jurisprudence, the study assesses the theoretical underpinnings of the law, considering the balance between individual freedom and social protection. ‌ ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ ‌ The enactment of the Code on Mandatory Official Registration of Real Estate Transactions represents a significant shift in the Iranian legal system, specifically in terms of contract formation and the recognition of formalities. The results of the research demonstrate that the imposition of formal requirements for real estate transactions has effectively addressed several long-standing issues inherent in the prior legal framework, particularly the challenges associated with informal, unregistered transactions. The study reveals that, while the principle of consensuality has long been dominant in Iranian contract law, its absolute application led to inefficiencies and vulnerabilities in the real estate sector, including widespread fraud, disputes over property ownership, and complications in judicial enforcement. The legislator’s decision to introduce mandatory registration is viewed as a response to these problems, offering clear benefits in terms of transactional security, judicial efficiency, and economic stability. The registration requirement ensures that all real estate transactions are properly documented and accessible for legal verification. This formalism not only strengthens the credibility of transactions but also provides a safeguard against potential legal challenges and the subsequent impact on the judiciary, which previously bore the burden of numerous unresolved cases related to unregistered transactions. This approach has the dual effect of fostering greater legal certainty in real estate dealings and streamlining judicial processes, as courts are now presented with documented, verifiable transactions rather than relying on testimonial evidence alone. Furthermore, the study discusses the positive secondary effects of the mandatory registration law, such as the reduction in fraudulent activities, including unauthorized property sales, forgery, and fraudulent claims. By setting clear and enforceable requirements for the validity of transactions, the law helps prevent these criminal activities and protects both the true property owners and third parties acting in good faith. This protection extends to ensuring that wrongful claims are penalized and compensated for at current market values, thus deterring opportunistic actors who may seek to exploit gaps in the previous legal system. Additionally, the law has improved the transparency of real estate ownership, contributing to better management of property rights and reducing ambiguities that could arise in property disputes. Another crucial aspect of the law is its impact on economic development. By promoting the formal registration of transactions, the law ensures greater stability and security for domestic and foreign investors, ultimately fostering increased investment in the real estate sector. With greater certainty around property rights, the law helps create an environment conducive to business growth and reduces the risk of disputes over land and property ownership. In this sense, the law plays a key role in encouraging economic activity by creating a clear and trustworthy system for property transactions, which, in turn, benefits the broader economy. While the law has achieved many of its objectives, the analysis suggests that there are areas where its implementation could be refined. For example, while Article 1 of the law addresses concerns about secondary transactions and contract rescission, further clarification on specific scenarios involving contract enforcement could improve the overall efficacy of the legal framework. Moreover, while the law has increased the protection of third parties, there may be instances where its enforcement leads to unintended consequences for individuals who lack the means to comply with the registration requirements, potentially exacerbating socio-economic inequalities. These considerations highlight the need for a more balanced approach in future amendments to the law, ensuring that it continues to align with both legal principles and contemporary economic realities. ‌ ∴ Conclusion ∴ ‌ In conclusion, the Code on Mandatory Official Registration of Real Estate Transactions represents a pivotal development in the Iranian legal system, marking a significant departure from the traditional emphasis on consensual contracts without formal requirements. By imposing formalities on real estate transactions, the Iranian legislator aims to address the shortcomings of the previous legal system, which had led to inefficiencies, fraud, and an overburdened judiciary. The law’s introduction of mandatory registration requirements has achieved several key objectives, including improving legal certainty, reducing fraud, enhancing judicial efficiency, and fostering economic growth. The results of this study suggest that, in many respects, the law succeeds in addressing the legal and practical challenges posed by informal real estate transactions. The imposition of formal requirements has not only strengthened the integrity of property rights but also contributed to the overall stability of the real estate market, benefiting both the contracting parties and society at large. Furthermore, the law’s focus on protecting third parties and penalizing fraudulent claims has proven to be a prudent approach to ensuring fairness and transparency in real estate dealings. However, the study also highlights areas where the law’s implementation could be improved. Some of the law’s provisions, while effective in many respects, may need further refinement to better align with the socio-economic realities of modern Iranian society, ensuring that the law is both effective and equitable. Future amendments to the law should consider these factors, taking into account the evolving nature of real estate transactions, the protection of individual rights, and the need for greater inclusivity in the legal system. Overall, the Code on Mandatory Official Registration of Real Estate Transactions represents an important step in balancing individual autonomy with the broader interests of society, while also aligning with the evolving economic and social needs of Iran. ناکارآمدی اصل رضایی بودن قراردادها در جامعه امروز موجب گردید که مقنن ایرانی نسبت به بازنگری در شرایط انعقاد برخی معاملات اقدام نماید. معاملات اموال غیرمنقول یکی از مصادیق این عقود است که به‌موجب «قانون الزام به ثبت رسمی معاملات اموال غیرمنقول»، مصوب مجمع تشخیص مصلحت نظام، نحوه انعقاد آن مورد بازنگری قرار گرفته و با عدول از اصل رضایی بودن قراردادها، جری تشریفات ثبت رسمی معامله شرط اعتبار آن قرار گرفته است. از طرفی، احکام و ادبیات موجود در خصوص تلف حکمی نیز در سالیان اخیر توسعه یافته و رویکردهایی مخالف با مواد 454 و 455 قانون مدنی ایران به رشته تحریر درآمده است. به‌علت ماهیت استثنایی تشریفات و شکل‌گرایی در حقوق مدنی ایران که مبتنی بر فقه امامیه است، و حاکمیت چندین ساله اصل رضایی بودن قراردادها، و از دیگر سو، به‌دلیل اهمیت معاملات اموال غیرمنقول و اثر مستقیم آن بر امنیت قضایی و حیات اقتصادی مردم، این اقدام قانون‌گذار با واکنش‌های گوناگونی از سوی حقوق‌پژوهان روبه‌رو شده است و صحت عملکرد مقنن در بوته نقد واقع گردیده است. در مقاله پیش‌‌‌رو، با اتخاذ روش توصیفی تحلیلی تلاش شده است تا با مطالعه مبانی تشریفات و شکل‌گرایی، ضمن تبیین کارایی شکل‌گرایی در حوزه معاملات اموال غیرمنقول، عملکرد قانون‌‌‌گذار در وضع قانون پیش‌گفته مورد تحلیل قرار گیرد. نتایج پژوهش حاکی از آن است که به علل مختلفی چون گسترش جوامع انسانی و نابرابری قدرت معاملاتی اشخاص، پیروی از اصل رضایی بودن قراردادها برای معاملات حوزه املاک، دیگر پاسخگوی نیازهای امروز جوامع بشری نبوده و وضع تشریفات برای آن، مشابه با عملکرد بسیاری از نظام‌های حقوقی دیگر، امری اجتناب‌‌‌ناپذیر است. با این همه، عملکرد مقنن ایرانی از برخی جهات نظیر «احکام مترتب بر اثر فسخ قرارداد بر معاملات ثانویه» واجد ایراد بوده و مستلزم بازنگری است.

https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77593_5202d5772535fc5070f4383fe4059cca.pdf

دانشگاه امام صادق علیه‌السلام پژوهش‌نامه حقوق اسلامی 2251-9858 26 3 2025 09 23 A Reflection on the Status of the Credentials of the Representatives of the Islamic Consultative Assembly of Iran in Light of the Opinions of the Guardian Council درنگی در جایگاه اعتبارنامه نمایندگان مجلس در نظرات شورای نگهبان 1031 1056 77543 10.30497/law.2025.247192.3648 FA روح‌اله مکارم دانشجوی دکتری حقوق عمومی، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران. 0000-0003-2207-6404 سیدمحمدهادی راجی استادیار، گروه حقوق عمومی و بین‌الملل، دانشکده معارف اسلامی و حقوق، دانشگاه امام صادق علیه‌السلام، تهران، ایران. 0009-0005-6437-396X Journal Article 2024 10 25 ‌ ∴ Introduction ∴ ‌ The process of reviewing and validating the credentials of representatives is widely recognized as a core component of parliamentary oversight. By determining whether each elected candidate meets the legal and constitutional requirements for membership, legislative assemblies can uphold the integrity of the electoral process and ensure public trust. In many jurisdictions, the authority to oversee election validity is divided between specialized bodies, such as constitutional courts, and the parliament itself. For example, Germany’s legal system provides a bifurcated mechanism: a specialized committee within the Bundestag initially reviews electoral validity, while the Federal Constitutional Court adjudicates subsequent appeals. Through such a dual-track procedure, the scope of each body’s authority is precisely delineated, thereby promoting checks and balances in the electoral oversight process. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, however, the extent to which the parliament can review its own members’ credentials is closely connected to the interpretative role of the Guardian Council. Article 99 of the Iranian Constitution vests the Guardian Council with the responsibility of supervising elections. This creates a dynamic relationship between the Guardian Council and the Islamic Consultative Assembly (Majles) in determining the legitimacy of electoral outcomes. Over various parliamentary terms, the Council’s interpretations have significantly impacted how the Majles reviews and approves its members’ credentials. Indeed, the extent of parliamentary review has fluctuated, reflecting the ongoing dialogue between legislative practice and constitutional oversight. Historically, the Persian Constitution of 1906 (Qānun-e Asāsi-ye Mashruteh) did not explicitly address the validation of representatives' credentials. Nonetheless, in early parliamentary sessions following the announcement of election results, the elected candidates were only recognized as representatives once their credentials were officially reviewed and approved by the parliament. This process was later explicitly mentioned in the 1909 internal regulations of the National Consultative Assembly, setting a precedent for parliamentary validation. The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran offers a more direct reference to credential review in Article 93, stating that the Islamic Consultative Assembly does not possess legal legitimacy without the Guardian Council’s presence, except when approving representatives’ credentials and in the election of legal experts of the Guardian Council. Despite the apparent constitutional acknowledgment of the Majles’s role in verifying credentials, the specifics of this function have evolved over time through amendments to the internal regulations of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, notably in 2000 and 2018. The Guardian Council’s position on these changes has not been entirely uniform; in some instances, it has upheld the parliamentary authority to validate credentials, while in other cases, it has contested certain procedural or substantive elements, suggesting a tension between constitutional interpretation and legislative practices. Against this backdrop, an essential inquiry emerges regarding the overall legal status and practical processes concerning the parliament’s role in validating its members’ credentials, given that the Guardian Council holds primary electoral oversight authority. This article seeks to delve into the matter by analyzing constitutional provisions, historical developments, internal assembly regulations, and the pivotal interplay with the Guardian Council’s opinions. ‌ ∴ Research Question ∴ ‌ Drawing upon the above historical and constitutional context, this article aims to answer the core question: “What is the status of the credentials of the Islamic Consultative Assembly’s representatives in Iran’s legal system in light of the opinions of the Guardian Council?” This guiding inquiry underscores how constitutional mandates and interpretive practices intertwine to shape the scope and efficacy of the parliament’s authority in credential validation. ‌ ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ ‌ In light of the documented evolution of internal parliamentary regulations and the explicit constitutional competence granted to the Guardian Council over electoral matters, the central hypothesis is that the Majles’s authority to validate representatives’ credentials is constitutionally recognized but is subject to a degree of Guardian Council oversight that may potentially restrict or redefine its scope. Consequently, the hypothesis posits that the Guardian Council’s interpretive stance—occasionally shifting in response to political and legal pressures—has led to inconsistencies in the practical application of the parliament’s credential review authority. Thus, while the Majles is vested with certain powers to scrutinize and ratify representatives’ credentials, it is neither absolute nor free from external checks, particularly where the Guardian Council perceives a conflict with its constitutionally mandated supervisory role. ‌ ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ ‌ Methodologically, this research employs a doctrinal approach, scrutinizing constitutional texts, statutory provisions (most notably the “Internal Regulations of the Islamic Consultative Assembly”), and scholarly commentaries to trace how the mandate of credential review is defined and practiced. Primary sources include the Iranian Constitution, official reports, and debates from the drafting sessions of the Constitution, as well as subsequent interpretations issued by the Guardian Council. Secondary sources consist of academic commentaries, expert analyses, and historical records that illustrate the trajectory of the legal debate on credential validation. ‌ ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ ‌ The findings of this study underscore the multifaceted interplay between the Islamic Consultative Assembly (Majles) and the Guardian Council in establishing and maintaining the validity of parliamentary credentials. Despite the Assembly’s explicit authority to oversee credential review, as set forth in its internal regulations, the Guardian Council’s constitutional mandate to supervise elections under Article 99 creates a dynamic where the Council’s interpretations can enhance or constrain the parliament’s role. In practice, the Council has issued numerous opinions that shape procedural nuances, sometimes aligning with parliamentary initiatives to expedite or formalize the validation process, while at other times criticizing or modifying legislative provisions. A key observation is that although the Guardian Council generally accepts the concept of parliamentary credential review, it often emphasizes adherence to foundational constitutional principles—particularly those relating to its own supervisory remit. Over time, these shifting interpretations have translated into varied degrees of practical impact on the Majles’s ability to uphold or reject elected representatives’ credentials. While earlier stances of the Guardian Council occasionally cast doubt on the Assembly’s power to decide independently on such matters, more recent pronouncements reveal a willingness to approve legislative measures designed to streamline credential review. Nevertheless, this flexibility does not imply a wholesale delegation of authority to the parliament. The Council continues to maintain that final oversight should remain consistent with constitutional guidelines and within its own interpretive framework. Hence, although the process can be prolonged or complicated by repeated reviews, the number of actual rejections or cancellations resulting from such scrutiny remains relatively small. By restricting overly broad delegation of the review process to a limited group of representatives and by distinguishing credential validation from broader electoral disputes, both the Assembly and the Council seek to preserve institutional checks and balances within Iran’s constitutional structure. ‌ ∴ Conclusion ∴ ‌ This research comprehensively examined the Guardian Council’s remarks concerning the credentials of representatives in the Islamic Consultative Assembly and reveals that the Council has not adopted a strictly uniform stance. On some occasions, it has reinforced the parliamentary process by endorsing modifications intended to clarify or expedite credential reviews; on other occasions, it has expressed concerns or objections regarding procedural measures that, in its view, might undermine constitutional principles. Significantly, these changing perspectives should not be deemed outright contradictions of Article 93 of the Constitution, which underscores the Assembly’s capacity to validate its members. Nevertheless, the Council’s evolving stance has resulted in minimal tangible effects on the rejection of credentials, as any revocation merely leads to the disqualification of the representative in question, whereas, until that point, all representative prerogatives remain intact. One of the core reasons behind this minimal practical effect is the mutual, albeit evolving, interpretation by the parliament and the Guardian Council of the procedures that govern credential approval. While the Guardian Council steadfastly insists on a formal vote in the plenary Assembly, it remains reluctant to extend this authority to smaller subsets of representatives. Moreover, although the Constitution and the election-related legal framework treat credentials as an issue separate from election validity, persistent attempts to conflate them—such as by linking the Assembly’s credential review to the candidate qualifications set out in electoral statutes—have surfaced in both the parliamentary regulations and the Guardian Council’s reflections. These efforts signal an ongoing pursuit of structured oversight, ultimately highlighting the intricate balance of powers that characterizes the Iranian constitutional order. مطابق با اصل نود و سوم قانون اساسی جمهوری اسلامی ایران، «مجلس شورای اسلامی بدون وجود شورای نگهبان اعتبار قانونی ندارد، مگر در مورد تصویب اعتبارنامه نمایندگان و انتخاب شش نفر حقوقدان اعضای شورای نگهبان»؛ لذا تصویب اعتبارنامه نمایندگان به‌عنوان یکی از ابزارهای نظارتی مجلس، در اصل مذکور پذیرفته شده است که این امر در اداره مجلس و هم‌چنین ابقاء یا اخراج منتخبان مردم از مجلس اهمیت به‌سزایی دارد. در ادوار مختلف مجلس، مقررات مرتبط با شیوه تصویب اعتبارنامه در قانون آیین‌نامه داخلی مجلس به‌صورت مکرر تغییر کرده و از رهگذر این تغییرات، شورای نگهبان در خصوص اعتبارنامه نمایندگان نظراتی را ابراز کرده است. پژوهش حاضر در صدد است که با روش توصیفی تحلیلی «جایگاه اعتبارنامه نمایندگان مجلس را بر بنیاد نظرات شورای نگهبان در نظام حقوقی ایران ترسیم کند.» برون‌داد پژوهش از این قرار است که شورای نگهبان در نظرات خود، رویکرد ثابتی در خصوص اعتبارنامه نمایندگان اتخاذ نکرده است. به‌رغم تأکید مستمر این شورا بر لزوم تصمیم‌گیری در خصوص اعتبارنامه‌ها در مجلس، درباره صلاحیت‌های نمایندگان قبل از تأیید اعتبارنامه ایشان، نظرات این شورا با تغییرات محسوسی همراه بوده است. هم‌چنین در برخی از نظرات شورای نگهبان، «اعتبارنامه» با «نظارت بر انتخابات» ارتباط مستقیمی پیدا کرده است. وانگهی، بعضی از این نظرات با قانون اساسی سازگار و برخی ناسازگار به‌نظر می‌رسد.

https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77543_970b633f6bd50d8b206eda03be2816d4.pdf

دانشگاه امام صادق علیه‌السلام پژوهش‌نامه حقوق اسلامی 2251-9858 26 3 2025 09 23 Conceptual Analysis of "Person" and "Personality" and the Impact of Confusion Between Them on the Validity of Legal Acts in the Context of Islamic Law and Iranian Civil Law مفهوم‌شناسی «شخص» و «شخصیت» و تأثیر اشتباه در آن‌ها بر وضعیت اعمال حقوقی 1057 1086 77352 10.30497/law.2024.246383.3548 FA بهزاد پورسید استادیار، گروه حقوق خصوصی، دانشکده معارف اسلامی و حقوق، دانشگاه امام صادق علیه‌السلام، تهران، ایران. محمدجواد فرحزادی دانشجوی دکتری حقوق خصوصی، دانشکده معارف اسلامی و حقوق، دانشگاه امام صادق علیه‌السلام، تهران، ایران. محمدجواد حیدری هرستانی دانشجوی دکتری حقوق خصوصی، دانشکده حقوق، دانشکدگان فارابی، دانشگاه تهران، قم، ایران. 0000-0002-0280-6660 Journal Article 2024 05 26 ‌ ∴ Introduction ∴ ‌ The conceptual distinction between "person" and "personality" is fundamental to the legal framework governing contracts and other legal acts. These terms, while seemingly straightforward, are fraught with complexity, particularly when errors in their application influence the legal status of such acts. The Iranian Civil Code, like its French predecessor, employs these terms without fully delineating their boundaries, leading to potential ambiguities in legal interpretations and outcomes. Article 201 of the Iranian Civil Code, derived from Article 1110 of the French Civil Code, addresses the issue of errors in the identity of contracting parties but does not adequately clarify the distinction between "person" and "personality." This ambiguity can lead to significant legal consequences when errors arise in these concepts during the formation of contracts and other legal transactions. This research seeks to clarify these concepts and explore their implications within the Islamic legal system and Iranian civil law. By doing so, it aims to fill a critical gap in legal doctrine, offering a more nuanced understanding of how errors in the identity or characteristics of a contracting party can impact the validity and enforceability of legal acts. ‌ ∴ Research Question ∴ ‌ The primary research question guiding this study is: What impact do errors in the concept of "person" and "personality" have on the status of legal acts within the Islamic legal system and Iranian civil law? This overarching question is further broken down into the following sub-questions: What are the precise definitions of "person" and "personality" within the context of legal acts? How do these concepts differ, and what are the implications of differentiating them in legal practice? What are the specific legal consequences of errors in the person or personality of a contracting party? ‌ ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ ‌ The hypothesis of this study is that errors in the concepts of "person" and "personality" have distinct and significant impacts on the validity and status of legal acts, and that these impacts vary depending on whether the error pertains to the identity of the contracting party or their characteristics (personality). It is posited that: Errors in "person," where the wrong individual is involved in the contract, can lead to the nullification or significant alteration of the legal act. Errors in "personality," where the characteristics of the correct individual are misunderstood or misrepresented, may not necessarily nullify the legal act but can lead to renegotiation, modification, or compensation, depending on the legal system's treatment of such errors. ‌ ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ ‌ The research adopts a doctrinal legal methodology, with a comparative approach to examine how different legal systems address errors in the concepts of "person" and "personality." The study primarily focuses on the Islamic legal system, Iranian civil law, and French civil law, given the direct influence of French legal doctrine on the Iranian Civil Code. ‌ ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ ‌ The research provides a detailed comparative analysis of the legal implications of errors in the concepts of "person" and "personality" within the contexts of Islamic jurisprudence, Iranian civil law, and French civil law. Through this analysis, the study highlights differences in how these errors are treated across various legal systems and the resultant effects on the validity and status of legal acts. One of the primary findings of the research is the critical distinction between "person" and "personality" in legal transactions. Errors in identifying the "person"—that is, the specific human being involved in a contract—can lead to the complete invalidation of the contract. This is particularly significant in contracts where the identity of the contracting party is central to the agreement, such as in marriage contracts or partnerships. For instance, in a marriage contract, an "error in person" results in the contract being void because the identity of the spouse is fundamental to the formation of the marriage. Similarly, in partnerships, where the partners' identities are essential, an error in person can invalidate the partnership contract, particularly before the partnership's legal personality is established. Conversely, an "error in personality" involves a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the characteristics of a person who is correctly identified. The research identifies two scenarios where an error in personality may occur: first, when the personality merely encourages the transaction, and second, when it plays an active role in forming the contractual will. In cases where the personality of the contracting party influences the contractual will, the contract may be subject to rescission or nullification if the characteristic in question is absent. However, in situations where personality merely encourages the transaction without being a condition for consent, such errors generally do not affect the contract's validity. The discussion also delves into specific types of legal acts, examining how errors in person and personality affect different types of contracts: Contracts Without Profit Motive [Mosamehi]: In contracts where the aim is not to gain profit but to fulfill an obligation or provide a benefit—such as gifts, pledges, and charity—the identity of the parties is crucial. An error in either the person or personality of the contracting party can lead to the invalidity of the contract, as the focus in these contracts is on the specific individual, not on maximizing benefit or advantage. Partnerships: In partnership contracts, the error's impact varies depending on whether the legal personality of the partnership has been established. Before the partnership's legal personality is formed, an error in the person or personality of the partners generally results in the contract's invalidity. However, once the partnership's legal personality is established, the contract's invalidity becomes relative, protecting the rights of third parties and upholding the contract's stability. Marriage Contracts [Nikah]: A clear distinction is made between errors in person and personality in marriage contracts. An error in person invalidates the marriage contract due to the centrality of the spouse's identity. However, an error in personality does not necessarily void the contract but may grant the aggrieved party the right of rescission, balancing the need for family stability with the principle of contractual fairness. Discharge [Ibra’]: In discharge, both errors in person and personality lead to the invalidity, as the identity of the discharged party is essential. Furthermore, the research discusses the implications of errors concerning third parties, particularly in contracts involving obligations benefiting a third party. In such cases, an error in the identity or personality of the third party does not invalidate the underlying contract but may necessitate fulfilling obligations towards the promisee to prevent unjust enrichment. ‌ ∴ Conclusion ∴ ‌ This review underscores the importance of clearly distinguishing between the concepts of "person" and "personality" in legal theory and practice. The findings reveal that errors in these concepts can have significant implications for the validity and enforceability of legal acts, particularly in contracts where the identity or characteristics of the parties are central to the agreement. By examining these issues through a comparative lens, the research contributes to a deeper understanding of the legal nuances in Islamic jurisprudence, the Iranian civil law, and the French civil law. The study highlights the need for legal systems to clearly define and differentiate these concepts to prevent ambiguities and ensure that legal acts are adjudicated fairly and consistently. The findings also suggest that legal practitioners and lawmakers should be aware of the potential consequences of errors in person and personality, particularly in complex contracts involving multiple parties or significant personal relationships. از لغزشگاه‌های مهم مباحث نظری دانش حقوق، عدم توجه کافی به مرزبندی دقیق مفاهیم مشابه و تأثیرگذار است که به عنوان یکی از مصادیق آن، می‌توان به دو مفهوم شخص و شخصیت اشاره نمود. مقاله حاضر به طور مشخص، با روش تحلیلی توصیفی، در صدد پاسخگویی به این پرسش است که «اشتباه در شخص» و «اشتباه در شخصیت»، هر کدام چه تأثیری بر وضعیت اعمال حقوقی دارند؟ اگرچه ماده 201 قانون مدنی ایران به حکم مسأله در معاملات اشاره نموده، ولی می‌توان با توسعه مفهوم معامله، ایقاع را هم مشمول آن دانست؛ یا با وحدت ملاک، حکم آن را به ایقاعاتی که میان طرفین تأثیرگذار است، تعمیم داد. ممکن است به نظر برسد پرسش مذکور از موضوعات قدیمی است که پاسخ آن در دکترین حقوقی داده شده؛ ولی بازپژوهی موضوع، حاکی از وجود ابعاد و زوایای جدیدی از مسأله است که نشان می‌دهد فرمول‌های کلی، پاسخگوی همه فروض مسأله نیست. برون‌داد کلی پژوهش، ضرورت توجه به وضعیت خاص هر عقد و ایقاع است. به عنوان نمونه، در برخی عقود باید بین طرفین عقد و ثالث، و شخص و شخصیت هر کدام تفکیک قائل شد؛ نظیر عقد ضمان که اشتباه در شخص مضمون‌عنه منجر به بطلان می‌گردد، اما اشتباه در شخصیت وی و هم‌چنین اشتباه در شخص یا شخصیت مضمون‌له تأثیری بر آن ندارد. در گروهی دیگر از عقود از قبیل شرکت اشخاص، اشتباه در شخص یا شخصیت شرکاء، در فاصله انعقاد عقد شرکت تا تشکیل آن، منجر به بطلان مطلق است؛ حال آنکه پس از تشکیل شرکت، منجر به بطلان نسبی است. در پاره‌ای از عقود نظیر عقد نکاح، اشتباه در شخص منجر به بطلان است؛ درحالی‌که اشتباه در شخصیت، موجد خیار فسخ خواهد بود. در برخی از معاملات نیز، نظیر معاملات وکالتی، اشتباه گرفتن شخص وکیل با اصیل و طرف عقد قرار دادن وی، در صورتی که معامله موضوع وکالت، از عقود مغابنی باشد باعث باطل‌شدن عقد نمی‌گردد، ولی اگر از عقود مسامحی، نکاح یا مانند آن باشد منجر به بطلان خواهد شد.

https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77352_1ca4c21695c7f1853918edb40cf9f955.pdf

دانشگاه امام صادق علیه‌السلام پژوهش‌نامه حقوق اسلامی 2251-9858 26 3 2025 09 23 Meta-synthesis of Factors Influencing Policy-making and Legislation in the Field of Situational Crime Prevention within Iran’s Legal System فراترکیب عوامل مؤثر بر سیاست‌گذاری و قانون‌گذاری در حوزه پیشگیری وضعی از جرم 1087 1134 77690 10.30497/law.2025.247620.3691 FA کاظم کوهی اصفهانی استادیار، گروه حقوق جزا و جرم‌شناسی، دانشکده معارف اسلامی و حقوق، دانشگاه امام صادق علیه‌السلام، تهران، ایران. حسن بیگدلی دانشجوی دکتری حقوق جزا و جرم‌شناسی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، واحد کرج، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، کرج، ایران. Journal Article 2025 01 20 ∴ Introduction ∴ ‌ The prevention of crime represents a vital and indispensable component of criminal policy, aiming to address criminal issues through proactive and non-criminal strategies. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, the significance of crime prevention is recognized at the constitutional level, particularly in Clause 5 of Article 156, which assigns the Judiciary the duty of preventing crime. Nonetheless, the practical realization of this duty has encountered substantial theoretical and operational obstacles, particularly given the traditional reactive nature of judicial institutions. In response to these challenges, the Iranian legislature adopted the "Law on Crime Prevention" in 2015, following an extended legislative process. Despite the law’s ratification, its practical implementation has remained limited, and notable advancements have yet to be realized. Within this context, the present study embarks on a meta-synthesis of existing Iranian research on situational crime prevention, aiming to extract and consolidate key factors influencing policy-making and legislation in this field. The study adopts a critical perspective, recognizing that situational crime prevention strategies must be carefully adapted to Iran’s unique cultural, social, and legal environment in order to achieve effective outcomes. ‌ ∴ Research Question ∴ ‌ Given the gap between the formal legal recognition of crime prevention and the insufficient practical realization of situational prevention measures, the central research question guiding this study is as follows: What are the critical factors that influence the policy-making and legislative processes regarding situational crime prevention within Iran’s legal system, as identified through a meta-synthesis of existing Iranian research? Sub-questions stemming from this core inquiry include: What obstacles have hindered the effective translation of situational crime prevention theories into Iranian legislative and executive measures? Which cultural, social, and structural variables must be considered when formulating and implementing crime prevention policies in Iran? How can Iranian criminal policy be optimized to better integrate situational crime prevention strategies based on empirical research findings? ‌ ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ ‌ As is characteristic of many meta-synthesis studies, this research proceeds without a traditional, explicitly stated hypothesis. Instead, it operates under an exploratory framework aimed at aggregating, interpreting, and synthesizing the findings of multiple prior studies. ‌ ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ ‌ This study employs a qualitative meta-synthesis methodology to systematically review and integrate existing Iranian research related to situational crime prevention. Meta-synthesis, distinct from traditional meta-analysis, is particularly suitable for synthesizing findings from conceptual, theoretical, and qualitative studies rather than purely statistical data. The research process involved several key stages: (1) identifying and selecting relevant primary studies through systematic database searches and manual review of academic journals and conference proceedings; (2) establishing inclusion and exclusion criteria to ensure the relevance, quality, and methodological rigor of the selected studies; (3) extracting thematic elements, conceptual categories, and analytical models from the primary studies; and (4) synthesizing these elements into a coherent framework that highlights the principal factors influencing policy-making and legislation. ‌ ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ ‌ The meta-synthesis of Iranian research on situational crime prevention reveals several critical insights into the factors influencing policy-making and legislation in this domain. One of the most significant findings is the confirmation that situational crime prevention measures must be carefully localized, taking into account Iran's distinct social, cultural, and economic characteristics. Generic adoption of foreign models without adaptation leads to ineffective policy outcomes and public resistance. Therefore, the emphasis must be placed on strategies that resonate with Iranian societal structures and values. Among the preventive strategies identified, environmental design emerged as a particularly effective method. The findings indicate that urban architecture, environmental engineering, and space management can serve as powerful tools in crime deterrence when integrated thoughtfully into public policy. Specific measures such as improving visibility through appropriate lighting, ensuring clear demarcations between public and private spaces, creating natural surveillance opportunities, and regulating access points to sensitive areas are cited as best practices for crime reduction. These findings are closely aligned with the principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), suggesting that collaboration between criminologists, architects, and urban planners is essential. Social surveillance also surfaced as a critical element. The concept of "place identity"—where an individual's behavior is influenced by the environments they associate with—reinforces the necessity of promoting a sense of community ownership over public and semi-public spaces. Natural surveillance, social monitoring, and informal community guardianship, when combined with formal policing efforts, significantly enhance crime prevention outcomes. However, it was repeatedly stressed that such surveillance measures must respect individual privacy rights and adhere to constitutional protections. Another notable discussion point concerns the importance of legitimate and proportional interventions. The research underlines that preventive measures must be preceded by clear warnings, maintaining the principles of transparency, proportionality, and fairness. Informing potential offenders about preventive mechanisms influences their rational decision-making process. Studies indicate that the perceived certainty of detection acts as a far stronger deterrent than the severity of punishment, making preventive communication and visible deterrent measures critical. Furthermore, the findings highlight several recommendations for improving situational crime prevention measures in Iran. These include the need to establish clear legal frameworks governing surveillance activities, both in physical spaces and cyberspace, to prohibit the use of dangerous or disproportionate preventive tools, and to ensure that the financial burden of prevention is not shifted onto ordinary citizens. Recognizing the role of victims in shaping preventive policies, integrating rational cost-benefit calculations into policy design, and promoting the professional development of enforcement personnel through knowledge exchange and training are also emphasized. Finally, the results show that situational crime prevention measures must be tailored based on the type of crime, the offender's profile, and the environmental context. Preventive strategies suitable for economic and property crimes differ significantly from those needed for violent or ideologically motivated crimes. Likewise, offenders with professional criminal backgrounds may require more sophisticated deterrents compared to opportunistic offenders who may be dissuaded by relatively simple measures such as enhanced lighting or visible surveillance. ‌ ∴ Conclusion ∴ ‌ Situational crime prevention is a pivotal mechanism for enhancing public security and reducing criminal opportunities, provided it is carefully adapted to the socio-cultural and legal specificities of each context. In Iran, while the constitutional and legislative frameworks acknowledge the importance of crime prevention, the effective realization of situational crime prevention strategies remains limited and requires a more robust and context-sensitive approach. The study concludes that the most effective situational prevention strategies for Iran revolve around two interconnected pillars: environmental design and social surveillance. By emphasizing natural surveillance, clear urban design, controlled access points, and strategic use of surveillance technology within the limits of constitutional rights, public spaces can be transformed into less conducive environments for criminal activity. Collaborative engagement between criminologists, urban planners, legislators, and community members is essential to develop and implement these strategies effectively. Moreover, respecting individual rights, particularly privacy, while strengthening preventive efforts, is crucial for public trust and legal legitimacy. Preventive measures must operate within a clear, proportionate, and transparent legal framework, where potential offenders are properly informed of preventive mechanisms to reinforce deterrent effects. Relying solely on harsher punishments without addressing environmental opportunities for crime has proven insufficient; therefore, situational prevention must be prioritized within broader criminal policy. In adapting situational crime prevention strategies, Iranian policymakers must account for the diversity of crimes and criminal behaviors. While situational measures show great success against profit-driven crimes and crimes tied to specific physical spaces, their effectiveness against ideologically or emotionally driven crimes remains limited. A flexible, crime-specific approach that considers the characteristics of offenders and victims is thus necessary. Additionally, law enforcement agencies, particularly the police, must adopt a preventive rather than reactive posture. Prioritizing risk analysis of physical and cyber environments, systematically gathering and analyzing crime data, and fostering active public participation are key strategies for maximizing the preventive impact. A scientific, data-driven approach to identifying and managing high-risk areas and populations enhances the effectiveness of crime prevention efforts while ensuring efficient allocation of limited security resources. اتخاذ تدابیر پیشگیرانه از وقوع جرم و کاهش کمّی جرائم، دغدغه همه نظام‌های حقوقی بوده و نظام حقوقی ایران نیز از این امر مستثنا نیست. پیشگیری وضعی به‌دنبال تسلط بر محیط و مدیریت آن، با هدف حذف یا دست‌کم کاهش فرصت‌های ارتکاب جرم از رهگذر روند فیزیکی جرم است. مسأله بنیادین جستار حاضر این است که مؤلفه‌های اساسی پیشگیری وضعی از جرم در سیاست‌گذاری تقنینی، که متناسب با زیست ‌بوم حقوقی ایران است چیست و توفیق نظام عدالت کیفری ایران در دستیابی به این مؤلفه‌ها در منابع منتخب تا چه میزان بوده است. نگارندگان در راستای پاسخ به سوال پیش‌گفته، با توسل به روش فراترکیب (Meta-Synthesis)، به‌صورت سامانمند و با معیارهای استاندارد تعیین‌شده، در پی بهره‌گیری از دانش انباشته در پژوهش‌های صورت گرفته در این زمینه بوده‌اند. یافته‌های این سنتزپژوهی، بیانگر آن است که بهره‌گیری از سازوکارهای پیشگیری وضعی، تاکنون به ‌صورت سامانمند و قانونی همراه با پیوست علمی نبوده، و رویه‌های عملی به‌کارگیری شده نیز چندان قابل دفاع نیست. برای نیل به این مهم، نیاز به همکاری علمی جرم‌شناسان با مسئولین سطوح مختلف تقنینی و اجرایی در استفاده از سازوکارهای بومی پیشگیری وضعی است. در این راستا باید توجه داشت که اتخاذ تدابیر و اقدامات پیشگیرانه وضعی، و سازوکارهای محیطی ناظر بر آن در سیاست‌گذاری، تقنین و اجرا، با توجه ‌به ویژگی‌های فرهنگی و دینی جامعه ایرانی، نباید به شیوه افراطی مورد استفاده قرار گیرد تا حس امنیت شهروندان و حق خلوت آن‌ها را دچار آسیب کند، بلکه باید از ظرفیت‌های بالقوه موجود در جامعه همچون نظارت انسانی، از رهگذر نظارت رسمی یا غیر رسمی، و یا نظارت رسمی در قالب انسانی یا تجهیزات‌محور، بهره بیشتری برده شود.

https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77690_4995f530dd7cf768ea137988e5fe0bca.pdf

دانشگاه امام صادق علیه‌السلام پژوهش‌نامه حقوق اسلامی 2251-9858 26 3 2025 09 23 An Analysis of the Impact of Human Rights Discourse on the Realization of a Unified Islamic Ummah: A Review of Legal and Religious Commonalities تحلیل تاثیر گفتمان حقوق بشر بر تحقق امت واحده اسلامی؛ مروری بر مشترکات حقوقی و دینی 1135 1164 77649 10.30497/law.2025.247570.3685 FA ابراهیم موسی‌زاده استاد، گروه حقوق عمومی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران. علی‌اکبر داودی‌پور دانشجوی دکتری حقوق بین‌الملل عمومی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، پردیس بین‌المللی خلیج فارس، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران. 0009-0006-6324-2922 Journal Article 2025 01 12 ‌ ∴ Introduction ∴ ‌ In recent years, human rights discourse has gained significant prominence as a powerful framework for shaping international policies, legal systems, and cultural identities. Its universal claims to safeguard dignity, liberty, and equality have prompted many nations and communities to integrate human rights principles into their legal and ethical codes. Concurrently, the concept of a Unified Islamic Community, rooted in Islamic teachings, aspires to foster solidarity, justice, and a collective identity among Muslims and monotheists worldwide. Although these two discourses—human rights and the Islamic Community—may initially seem divergent, they share foundational values, such as dignity and justice, which can promote a more harmonious global society. The intersection of human rights discourse and the Islamic Community is complex. While universal human rights frameworks were primarily developed within Western legal traditions, Islamic teachings are anchored in their own ethical and jurisprudential systems, derived from sources such as the Quran and Sunnah. This divergence has sparked debates about the compatibility of these two discourses and whether they inevitably clash. These debates manifest in various cultural, legal, and political contexts. For instance, universal human rights instruments advocate for principles like freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and non-discrimination, while interpretations of Islamic law in many Muslim-majority societies can either reinforce or appear to contradict certain aspects of international human rights conventions. In this context, globalization adds further pressure on Islamic communities. Rapid advancements in communication, the rise of multicultural societies, and increasing global interconnectedness can simultaneously challenge and reinforce collective identities. On one hand, globalization can lead to cultural homogenization, raising concerns that local religious traditions may become diluted. On the other hand, global networks can serve as platforms for Islamic scholars and institutions to engage in constructive dialogue, articulate diverse perspectives, and pursue shared goals. Therefore, understanding how human rights discourse can be reconciled with the vision of a Unified Islamic Community is particularly critical. Contemporary challenges facing Islamic societies—ranging from political instability to social fragmentation—underscore the urgency of constructing or reinforcing a shared sense of identity that resonates with a broad segment of believers. If human rights principles, such as dignity, fraternity, and justice, can be shown to align with fundamental Islamic tenets, they may serve as a unifying force, strengthening bonds within and among Muslim communities. Conversely, if these principles are perceived as inherently external or incompatible, they may generate internal conflict that undermines unity. Within this context, developing a nuanced understanding of how human rights discourse interacts with the theological, legal, and cultural dimensions of Islamic thought could prove invaluable for policymakers, scholars, and religious leaders. ‌ ∴ Research Question ∴ ‌ In light of these considerations, the core inquiry guiding this study is: How can human rights discourse contribute to the realization of the concept of a Unified Islamic Community? This central research question reflects the tension between the universalist claims embedded in modern human rights frameworks and the distinct vision of a unified community grounded in Islamic teachings. While numerous scholarly works have individually focused on human rights or the idea of the Unified Islamic Community, there is a notable gap in the literature regarding their confluence and potential synergies. By addressing this question, the study aims to explore whether, and under what conditions, a constructive overlap between human rights norms and Islamic principles can foster a more cohesive Muslim identity and, by extension, a stronger collective Islamic presence in global affairs. ‌ ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ ‌ Based on preliminary observations and existing scholarship, this paper posits the following primary hypothesis: By relying on the commonalities between human rights principles and Islamic teachings—particularly values such as fraternity, justice, and human dignity—it is possible to strengthen internal cohesion and facilitate steps toward realizing a Unified Islamic Community. This hypothesis assumes that certain core tenets of Islam share conceptual and practical parallels with international human rights discourse. Both frameworks emphasize the preservation of human life, the pursuit of social and economic justice, and the importance of moral accountability. However, this proposition does not overlook potential areas of conflict; rather, it highlights the need for engaging in interpretive processes that bring Islamic jurisprudential tradition into meaningful dialogue with contemporary global norms. By testing this hypothesis, the article aims to illuminate where these discourses converge and how tensions might be reconciled or mitigated through informed and respectful discourse. ‌ ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ ‌ The study adopts an interdisciplinary approach, drawing on legal analysis, theological inquiry, and socio-political theory. First, it conducts a doctrinal review of international human rights instruments, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and subsequent treaties, to identify the overarching principles that define the global understanding of human rights. Second, it systematically examines select Islamic legal and theological sources—primarily the Quran, the Sunnah, and jurisprudential commentaries—to identify principles that resonate with or diverge from these global norms. Using comparative analysis, the research highlights overlapping constructs—such as the sanctity of life, the imperative of justice, and the emphasis on moral accountability—and explores how these shared elements might reinforce a sense of unity within the Islamic Community. Alongside this textual investigation, the study considers historical and contemporary case studies to illustrate how Muslim-majority societies have grappled with the practical implementation of human rights. By assessing successful examples of legal and policy frameworks that integrate human rights norms with Islamic principles, as well as instances of discord, the research seeks to build a robust analytical model for understanding this complex relationship. Finally, the article employs an inductive reasoning process, drawing on specific cases, scholarly interpretations, and policy outcomes to infer broader insights about the capacity of human rights discourse to serve as a catalyst for unity within Islamic contexts. Rather than presenting a monolithic view of Islamic law or homogenizing international human rights discourse, the methodology remains attentive to the diversity of interpretations and applications in different cultural, historical, and political settings. Through this comprehensive framework, the study endeavors to provide policymakers, religious scholars, and academics with constructive pathways toward aligning human rights objectives with Islamic imperatives, without prematurely dismissing the genuine challenges inherent in this alignment. ‌ ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ ‌ The findings of this study underscore both the promise and complexity of using human rights discourse to strengthen the realization of a Unified Islamic Community. On one hand, the research identifies notable congruencies between the universal principles enshrined in international human rights instruments and the core tenets of Islamic teachings. Concepts such as fraternity, justice, human dignity, and the imperative of peaceful coexistence emerge as shared ethical pillars. These commonalities can catalyze social cohesion and collective identity among Muslims. When human rights principles are appropriately contextualized within Islamic jurisprudential frameworks, they can amplify values central to the Community, reinforcing unity among believers. However, the study also reveals areas of tension when universal human rights claims intersect with the specific legal and cultural norms of Muslim-majority societies. Some interpretations of jurisprudential thought may view certain components of human rights discourse as externally imposed or incompatible with local traditions. These tensions indicate that achieving harmony between the two discourses requires nuanced interpretive approaches. Instead of a one-size-fits-all model, an integrative process—whereby Islamic legal experts and human rights advocates collaboratively explore the interpretive breadth and depth of both traditions—proves most conducive to constructive engagement. Empirically, the examination of legal, policy, and social measures across various Islamic countries confirms that constructive dialogue between these two discourses is not only possible but has been partially realized. Initiatives that incorporate human rights education into religious curricula, support grassroots advocacy for women’s and minority rights within an Islamic framework, and encourage intergovernmental cooperation among Muslim-majority nations provide tangible evidence of how these shared values can be operationalized. Such endeavors help mitigate the perception that human rights norms are strictly “Western” constructs, revealing their alignment with deeply rooted Islamic ethics. Additionally, the proliferation of digital platforms and social media presents both opportunities and challenges for deepening awareness of human rights values in Islamic contexts. New media can serve as a vehicle for disseminating knowledge about the compatibility of Islam and human rights, facilitating community-building and dialogue. However, unregulated or partisan use of these platforms can exacerbate misunderstandings or fuel divisions. This underscores the need for skillful, well-informed communication strategies that highlight points of alignment, promote respectful debate, and foster collaborative initiatives among diverse stakeholders. ‌ ∴ Conclusion ∴ ‌ The impact of international human rights discourse on the concept of a Unified Islamic Community is inherently multifaceted. While innate tensions may arise between the universal claims of human rights and the distinctive vision of an Islamic Community, continuous and effective support for rights rooted in Islamic values is crucial for preserving the authenticity and relevance of Islamic faith in the modern world. This research evaluated how human rights discourse contributes to the realization of a Unified Islamic Community, finding that an emphasis on shared principles such as fraternity, justice, human dignity, and peaceful coexistence can significantly enhance the Community’s cohesion and integrity. These points of concordance between Islamic teachings and human rights norms provide a powerful basis for collective identity, enabling Muslims to align modern legal frameworks with foundational religious principles. A key contribution of this study is the delineation of practical approaches to fortify this alignment, including targeted human rights education programs within Muslim communities, strategic use of social media to disseminate complementary Islamic and rights-based values, and the creation or enhancement of international institutions dedicated to collaboration among Islamic nations. By adopting these strategies, Islamic societies can mitigate cultural or jurisprudential frictions while reinforcing their internal solidarity. In light of these findings, future research should conduct comparative analyses across diverse Islamic jurisdictions, investigate the evolving role of international bodies, and perform in-depth case studies. Such endeavors would further illuminate how best to reconcile Islamic legal and ethical frameworks with the global aspirations of human rights, advancing the shared goal of a cohesive, equitable, and principled Islamic Community. بر اساس نصوص قرآن کریم، دیگر موازین اسلامی و اصول قانون اساسی جمهوری اسلامی ایران، تلاش برای تشکیل و تحقق امت واحده اسلامی یک آرمان برجسته دینی است. علی‌رغم تلاش‌های مختلف صورت گرفته در این راستا، بی‌گمان جوامع اسلامی فاصله قابل توجهی با نقطه مطلوب دارند. نظر به این امر، پرسش اصلی نوشتار حاضر این است که «چگونه می‌توان از گفتمان حقوق بشر برای تحقق امت واحده اسلامی یاری جست؟» اهم یافته‌های مقاله حاضر که با روش توصیفی تحلیلی و با تکیه بر مشترکات موجود میان موازین اسلامی و اصول حقوق بشری، همچون برادری، وحدت خانواده بشری، عدالت و کرامت انسانی، سامان یافته است، بدین شرح است که با توجه به وجود اصول، ارزش‌ها و هنجارهای مشترک میان حقوق بشر و آموزه‌های اسلامی، می‌توان با تکیه بر مشترکاتی همچون دعوت، تبلیغ، جدال احسن، هم‌زیستی مسالمت‌آمیز، برادری، تعامل، کرامت انسانی و عدالت، گام‌های موثری برای تحقق امت واحده اسلامی برداشت. گفتمان حقوق بشر با تقویت هویت مشترک و هم‌بستگی اجتماعی، می‌تواند به عنوان ابزاری مؤثر در جهت تحقق اهداف امت واحده اسلامی عمل کند. در نهایت، این تحقیق نشان داده است که هم‌سویی گفتمان حقوق بشر با آموزه‌های اسلامی، نه‌تنها امکان‌پذیر است، بلکه می‌تواند به ایجاد جامعه‌ای عادلانه و هم‌سو با اهداف دینی منجر شود.

https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77649_96dde98c5be61a2de82d470f925e04eb.pdf