Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1
Doctoral student in Fiqh and Fundamentals of Islamic Law, Faculty of Law, Theology and Political Sciences, Science and Research Department, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2
Professor, Department of Theology and Islamic Studies, Farabi Campus, University of Tehran, Qom, Iran
3
Associate Professor, Department of Fiqh and Fundamentals of Islamic Law, Faculty of Humanities, Memorial Unit of Imam Khomeini (RA), Islamic Azad University, Shahr Ray, Iran
Abstract
Inheritance condition relies on the confirmation of the heir's survival after the death of the deceased. Individuals whose time of death is uncertain and where the precedence of one's demise over the other is not determinable, do not fulfill the inheritance condition according to the primary rule. However, in the cases of drowning and destruction, an exception has been made, and the uncertainty of the time of death of both parties will not impede inheritance. According to the more prevalent view among jurists, this exception should be narrowly interpreted; however, proponents of extension, mainly based on some general customary considerations - without focusing on the specific wording and phrases in the evidence - have deemed titles extracted from evidence as lacking specificity, thus extending the ruling of exemption from the titles of drowning and destruction to similar cases.
In the current research presented through a descriptive-analytical method, an attempt has been made to explore the linguistic relationships existing in the evidence's terminology, aiming to discover criteria and refine the subjects discussed so that, through this approach, extending the ruling to similar cases such as traffic accidents and others becomes feasible. In this study, by juxtaposing the terms extracted from the evidence, the lack of specificity in destruction and drowning has been established.
Keywords
Main Subjects
)
Send comment about this article