Jurisprudence and private law

Abstract  In this study, we have classified digital data into three groups to precisely investigate digital data value and ownership: (1) Digital data with foreign likeness. Cyberspace is an environment for intellectual property such as computer software that are available as digital data. (2) Big data that is naturally realizable outside the network but is available in cyberspace since it is large in volume and time-consuming for external handling. (3) Data such as domain and web hosting that are instruments for cyberspace and there is no foreign likeness for them and they have been created according to the requirements of the cyberspace. The value of the digital data is determined by the data’s economic value on one hand, and on the other hand, by inference to the types of properties in Fiqh and Islamic law. Ownership, too, in the context of full claim on digital data is acceptable due to the advantage of possessing it.
In this study, we have studied each category under a certain legal system with respect to the characteristics of each category and qualities of properties according to Fiqh and Islamic law: The first and second groups – as intellectual rights – are placed under the principle of intellectual property and its rules of ownership. Cyberspace instruments shall be considered as the infrastructures such as hardware and the resulting benefits as well as ownership of such data will be investigated under civil property system.

Abstract When a commodity is submitted by the owner to the other party for future transaction, the mutual relations can be in the form of contract, unilateral obligation or mere authorization. Therefore, the nature of this relationship depends on the intention of the parties and there is no obstacle according to Sharia law to it. The practice has some effects and it is necessary to identify these effects in order to determine the type of relationship of the transactors and arbitration between them. Guarantee on damage or loss of the commodity is one of the guarantees that in view of some jurists is the owner’s obligation, while some consider it that of the receiver. However, since the owner delivers the commodity to the other party upon his will, it is unlikely to consider the receiver responsible unless in wasting commodity or in encroachment. Therefore, guaranteeing the commodity in case of damage or loss is on the owner.
Upon evaluation of various views on the nature and impact of the said institution, in this paper all aforesaid views can be taken as one. In this case, the probable problems for the traders in this area will be removed and the ground will be prepared for a fair arbitration between them.

Abstract The validity of probative evidences is one of the fundamental discussions in methodology of religion. Probative evidences (religious circumstantial evidences) are among the evidences needed for interpretation and inference of the Sharia rules, the signifiers of which–in addition to comparative signified–have sometimes evidentiary effects. Evidentiary effect in methodology means the religious effects attributable to the rational instruments, necessities and requirements, either ordinary or accidental, which can be taken as evidence or codes of action. In case of the validity of probative evidence and its reasons, three theories may be put forth: Some jurists attribute the nature of evidence, in terms of proof, depending upon its validity thus rule on absolute validity of probative evidence. Some others, however believing in absolute validity of the probative evidence, have attributed the reason to the quality of proof and attribution of the reasons for validity of the evidence. The third group of jurists believe in a detailed manner which draws a line of separation between various types of evidence and probative evidences. Apparently, to study the validity of probative evidences, the reasons for validity of the evidence must be taken into consideration. Therefore, if the reason behind validity of the evidence is an instance of compulsory obedience, its probative reasoning shall not be valid but if it is based on logical and consistent usages (which is true in the case of the majority of cases) the criterion will be constraints in logical usages and related terms. This is because men of reason at times take something as evidence while at the same time reject its probative values, such as evidence on probation, possession, presumption of marriage bed, and confession.

Abstract Mortgage of jointly owned property (indivisum) is permissible according to Imamiyah, Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali (except Hanafi) schools of Law because it is an instance of the rule of dominion. This is because conclusion of the mortgage contract does not mean possession of the jointly owned property. It is clear that submission of the jointly owned property to the mortgagee, in cases where it requires possession of the shares of the other partners, requires obtaining their consent. In cases where the mortgager submits the property to the mortgagee without the consent of the other partners, he shall be considered legally responsible for that. However, in cases where the submission of property means evacuation, the submission of the property does not mean possession of the shares of other partners, thus according to the jurisprudence of the above-said schools of law it does not need their consent for evacuation. This paper intends to study these issues in the jurisprudence of the abovementioned five schools of law and in the Iranian law.

Abstract In Islamic Sharia law, with respect to the rule of the association of profit and loss, basically the principal capital return is not guaranteed. Therefore, gaining real profit is always associated with the possibility of loss and damage. Whereas in Islamic financial mechanisms such as commissioned manufacture bonds, the payment of the nominal value included in the bonds is guaranteed by the publisher in due date. Therefore, the owners of the bonds who are the investors of transactions will not sustain a loss or receive a reward for the reduction or increase in the value of the project upon receiving the nominal value of the bonds (principal capital). However, an analysis of the procedure for publication of the bonds, makes it clear that in commissioned manufacture bonds based on interest, the receipt of nominal value of the bonds will be realized according to the entitlement of the owners in due date proportionate to the total value of the amount due. Also guaranteeing the principal capital by the publisher of the commissioned manufacture bonds is according to the liability of the seller to pay for the object of sale. Moreover, the owners of the bonds as the buyers only own the amount due in duty of the debtor and they shall have no right in project thus commissioned. In this sense, any increase or reduction in the value of the project will have no effect in the amount of their claim.
Whereas the owners of commissioned manufacture bonds along with rent with an ownership option are the joint owners of the project, thus in case of increase in project value in connection with the nominal value of the bonds, they are entitled to claim the value added. This is because according to the rule of logics the owner of actual property deserves to take a share of the increase in value of actual property value as he is to sustain the damages incurred on the actual property. Similarly, the reduction in project value in proportion to the nominal value of the commissioned manufacture bonds along with the rent with an ownership option, must be attributable to the joint owners, i.e. investors.

Abstract Mutual consent divorce is one major cause behind issuing certificate of incompatibility that upon the very consent, the court is free to avoid entering into the nature of the dispute. The family law, ratified in 2012, while stipulating a time span for issuing certificate of incompatibility based on mutual consent, has conditioned its enforcement to the request by the husband. Therefore, a single request by the wife cannot be legally sufficient for the enforcement of the law. Such a preference is synonymous with spoiling the financial rights of the wife and this makes the wife’s will in mutual consent divorce ineffective. There is also ambiguity in the nature of divorce based on mutual consent and the type of divorce contract, which this paper intends to study.