Islamic jurisprudence
Ali Mohamadian
Abstract
According to the common theory in Imami jurisprudence, the end of the work of a thief who repeatedly commits theft will be nothing but murder and deprivation of life. This view, although in Article 278 of the Penal Code (adopted in 1392), has also been recognized by the well-known jurists; However, the ...
Read More
According to the common theory in Imami jurisprudence, the end of the work of a thief who repeatedly commits theft will be nothing but murder and deprivation of life. This view, although in Article 278 of the Penal Code (adopted in 1392), has also been recognized by the well-known jurists; However, the opposition of some late jurists has led to the fact that it is against the necessary precaution in temperature. It is noteworthy that this issue has been the subject of controversy in the jurisprudence of public religions and has led to the formation of various arguments and the emergence of various sayings in the issue; Therefore, in addition to Imami jurisprudence, the present article has also studied the views of Sunni religions in jurisprudence. It is clear that the necessity of discussion in terms of its relevance to human life is undeniable. The results of the research show that the famous Mukhtar of the Imami jurists is not without controversy and the promise to take the life of the thief, in addition to the lack of sufficient evidence to prove it, has caused a stagnation in temperature and is contrary to the meaning of the rule of unity; In addition, the prerequisites for the initial rules of the chapter require the deviation from such a view.
Masood Bassami
Abstract
Iran's civil law allows the finder (lost property) to possess it under certain conditions. However, the question that arises is whether it is a crime if the person who found the property seizes the property. There is disagreement among lawyers about this question. Some believe that illegal seizure is ...
Read More
Iran's civil law allows the finder (lost property) to possess it under certain conditions. However, the question that arises is whether it is a crime if the person who found the property seizes the property. There is disagreement among lawyers about this question. Some believe that illegal seizure is a crime, but there is no consensus on what a criminal offence is. Some believe in theft, some in abuse of confidence, some in the transfer of property of others, and some in the acquisition of property through illegitimate means. On the other hand, some jurists believe that the illegal seizure of property is not a crime. The results of the present study indicate that the opinion of the second group is stronger and seizure of property is not a crime even if it is against the law.
