Religious rules, whether charging or positive, belong to the acts of those liable to religious duties. Some of these rules require the capacity of those liable to religious duties over their acts. Such a capacity is “right” in its jurisprudential sense, on whose definition there is no unanimity and which can be a matter of fact for certain rules. Permissibility of relinquishment and transfer through inheritance is one of the effects of such a consideration. In contrast, there is the term “rule,” meaning those religious regulations from which you cannot derive capacity over acts. As a result, those three effects are lacking in the rules. Some of these rules are termed as “right” in jurisprudential books, indicating their literal meaning, i.e., affirmation. However, in their deep analysis, they are rules due to their lack of the three features. It is worth noting that not all rights are at the same level concerning these features. In some cases, there is doubt about distinguishing between right and rule. In other cases, there is no doubt that something is a right, but there is doubt about its possession of some of those features. These situations require a precise criterion for distinguishing the right from the rule and recognizing the effects of the right. The present article is an attempt to identify the differences between these two divine legislations through various views of jurisprudents.
)
