نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 استادیار جامعة المصطفى العالمیه، قم، ایران.
2 مدرس خارج فقه، حوزه علمیه، قم، ایران.
3 فارغ التحصیل دکتری فقه اسلامی دانشگاه جامعة المصطفى العالمیه، قم، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
One of the well-established jurisprudential and legal principles is the textual rule, “The burden of proof is upon the claimant, and the oath is upon the one who denies” (al-bayyinah ‘ala al-mudda‘i wa al-yamin ‘ala man ankara), which constitutes a fundamental criterion in Islamic adjudication. Nevertheless, certain cases in Islamic jurisprudence qualify this rule. One such case concerns the defendant’s refusal (nukul) to take or return the oath. Using library-based data collection and a descriptive-analytical approach, this article examines the jurisprudential propositions and the opinions of both Sunni and Shi‘i jurists regarding the permissibility or impermissibility of rendering judgment solely on the basis of the defendant’s refusal to take the oath. The study arrives at a novel conclusion concerning the acceptance of the claimant’s assertion without evidence or oath in such circumstances. In Islamic jurisprudence, two principal views exist regarding the defendant’s refusal to return the oath. First, some jurists, including Shaykh al-Saduq and Shaykh al-Mufid, permit judgment solely on the basis of the defendant’s refusal. According to this view, when the defendant refuses to swear, the judge may rule in favor of the claimant, and numerous arguments have been advanced in support of this position. Second, the majority of Imamiyya jurists maintain that the oath must be referred back to the claimant. According to this view, the defendant’s refusal alone is insufficient for issuing a judgment; rather, the oath must first be offered to the claimant, and only if the claimant swears the oath may the claim be accepted. This position is consistent with Article 1328 of the Iranian Civil Code and Article 274 of the Iranian Code of Civil Procedure. It also enjoys support among certain Sunni legal schools. The implication of the first view is that the claimant’s assertion may be accepted without the presentation of evidence or an oath if the defendant refuses both to take the oath and to return it to the claimant. According to this opinion, the general rule concerning evidentiary proof is qualified by the defendant’s refusal, such that the claimant’s statement may be accepted without evidence or oath in this specific circumstance.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)