Right in Islamic jurisprudence entails two meanings: First, right in its general sense, means property and decree and in its specific sense it means right. The examples for this denotation of right are the right of fatherhood, right of guardianship for the ruler, right of administratorship, right of custody and the like. Although these are interpreted as right in the literature of the jurisprudents, they are all examples of decree. Second, right in its particular sense is vis-à-vis property and decree. Therefore, it has been said that the jurisprudents who put right in front of property and decree, they mean a type of religiously obligatory decree, which is also called religious decree or the decree of the Legislator. However, in cases we consider decree in its general sense, either obligatory or enacted, it is clear that right (like property) is a type of enacted decree. Therefore, decree in its general sense is attributable to its particular meaning (second meaning).
On this basis, when right is compared and contrasted with decree, the denotative meaning of the two is involved and when in jurisprudence, jurists talk about the effects and consequences of right, like the capacity to waiver, and transfer, they mean that right possesses these effects as an enacted decree and its independent rational validity. On the contrary, the obligatory decree lacks such characteristics.
This paper is an attempt to study the relationship between obligatory decree and enacted decree, and as well as the viewpoints of theoreticians at law and the independent viewpoints. Attempts also have been made to discuss the criteria for distinguishing right from decree and the procedure and criteria for judgment when doubt is raised about right and decree. In case of the absence of criteria, what shall be the basis for performance?