نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دکتری فقه و مبانی حقوق اسلامی، دانشگاه قم، قم، ایران
2 دانش آموخته سطح ۴ حوزه علمیه، قم ، ایران،
3 دانش پژوه سطح ۴ مرکز تخصصی مذاهب اسلامی، قم، ایران
چکیده
تازه های تحقیق
Conclusion
Based on the investigations conducted in this research, the following results may be derived:
Sufficiency of ʻIlm Ijmālī (knowledge in globo) regarding the amount of dower (mahr): The findings demonstrate that ʻilm ijmālī as to the quantum of dower suffices for its validity and enforceability, and that partial ignorance with respect to a portion of the dower does not render the mahr al-musammā (stipulated dower) void or necessitate its conversion into mahr al-mithl (equivalent dower).
Non-requirement of ʻIlm Tafṣīlī (detailed knowledge): The authorities invoked in support of the requirement of detailed knowledge of the dower—including the traditions (aḥādīth) stating "a named consideration and a named term"—do not carry sufficient indicatory force (dalālah) to establish detailed knowledge as a condition, and are predominantly directed at cases of total ignorance (jahl mukammal).
Substantive distinction between marriage (nikāḥ) and commutative contracts: Marriage, as a contract of a concessionary nature (ʻaqd musāmaḥī) imbued with devotional aspects (jānib ‘ibādī), enjoys a greater degree of tolerance compared to commutative (mughābanah) contracts such as sale (bay‘). Consequently, minor uncertainty (gharar) in the dower—unlike in pecuniary transactions—is excusable.
Article 1079 of the Iranian Civil Code explicitly provides that the dower must be ascertained to the extent that ignorance on the part of the spouses is removed. This provision may be construed as supporting the sufficiency of ʻilm ijmālī and the validity of dower attended by minor ambiguity. Moreover, the personal status laws of most Islamic countries merely address the principle of facilitation (taysīr) in respect of dower, without referring to any condition of detailed knowledge.
Validity of custom (ʻurf) and established practice (sīrah): Custom and the established practice observed in the conclusion of marriage contracts indicate that ʻilm ijmālī as to the dower—for instance, fixing the dower by physical view (mushāhada) without specifying the exact quantity—has consistently been accepted and has not been repudiated or prohibited by the Lawgiver (shār‘).
Practical application in litigation: In cases involving composite dowers (mahr murakkab)—such as fifty (50) full Bahār-i Āzādī gold coins together with a monthly fixed sum—the husband shall be obliged to pay the determined portion (the fifty coins) and the qadr-i mutayyaqin (the ascertainable minimum) of the ambiguous portion (the monthly sum for the duration of cohabitation).
Non-effect of partial ignorance on the right of retention (ḥaqq al-ḥabs): Although ignorance as to part of the dower may affect the enforcement of the wife's right of retention, this issue is independent of the validity of the marriage contract and the dower itself, and may be resolved through mechanisms such as estimating the customary duration of cohabitation.
In sum, this research demonstrates that, from the perspective of Imāmī jurisprudence (fiqh al-imāmiyyah) as well as other Islamic schools of law (madhāhib), a dower attended by ʻilm ijmālī—even where ambiguity subsists as to a portion of its quantum—is valid and enforceable, and there is no requirement to convert it into mahr al-mithl. It must be acknowledged, however, that this construction amounts to a conjectural inference (istizhār ẓannī) derived from the statutory provision of the Civil Code, and no express stipulation to that effect is found in the text of the statute itself.
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Nowadays, dowry covers a significant part of family lawsuits. In some cases, despite the determination of the dowry, part of it remains unknown; such as fifty coins in addition to two hundred thousand tomans per month. In fact, the amount of dowry is only known in general, not in detail. The main issue is the sufficiency of general knowledge or the requirement of detailed knowledge of the amount of the dowry. Does general knowledge of dowry disrupt its establishment and, with the invalidation of the dowry, become a metaphorical dowry or not? The findings of this research, using a descriptive-analytical method, show that general knowledge of the amount of dowry is sufficient and partial ignorance does not disrupt the dowry of the dowry. Although evidence such as narrations involving "a specified reward and a specified term", the need to avoid gharr and the impossibility of fulfilling subsequent obligations when the amount of dowry is unknown, their implication was not sufficient to prove the claim. On the other hand, for the sufficiency of general knowledge in the amount of dowry in establishing it, numerous evidences such as specific narrations, the sufficiency of general knowledge in forbearance contracts, the priority method was established through the legitimacy of assigning dowry in marriage, custom and tradition. Article 1079 of the Iranian Civil Code has also explicitly considered dowry that can partially remove ignorance for the couple to be effective. As a result, the dowry mentioned in the question of this research is effective in the amount of fifty coins along with a monthly payment of two hundred thousand tomans.
کلیدواژهها [English]
بر اساس بررسیهای انجام شده در این پژوهش، نتایج زیر قابل استخراج است:
۴. ماده ۱۰۷۹ قانون مدنی ایران صراحتاً مقرر میدارد که مهر باید تا حدی که جهالت زوجین رفع شود، معلوم باشد. این ماده میتواند مؤید کفایت علم اجمالی و نفوذ مهر دارای ابهام جزئی است. قوانین احوال شخصیه بیشتر کشورهای اسلامی نیز فقط به اصل تسیه در مهر پرداختهاند و اشارهای به اشتراط علم تفصیلی ندارند.
۵. اعتبار عرف و سیره: عرف و سیره عملی در انعقاد نکاح، نشان میدهد که علم اجمالی به مهر، مانند تعیین مهر با مشاهده بدون ذکر دقیق مقدار همواره مورد پذیرش بوده و مورد ردع شرعی قرار نگرفته است.
در مجموع، این پژوهش نشان میدهد که از منظر فقه امامیه و سایر مذاهب اسلامی، مهر دارای علم اجمالی ـ حتی با وجود ابهام در بخشی از مقدار آن ـ نافذ و معتبر است و نیازی به تبدیل آن به مهرالمثل نیست، هرچند این برداشت، استظهار ظنی از ماده قانونی قانون مدنی است و تصریحی در متن قانون یافت نشد.
)