A critique of the famous idea of ​​jurists regarding the absolute liability of the true usurper, considering the opinions of contemporary jurists and a comparative study with the laws of Muslim countries.

یاری نژاد, Ali

A critique of the famous idea of jurists regarding the absolute liability of the true usurper, considering the opinions of contemporary jurists and a comparative study with the laws of Muslim countries.

Articles in Press

Document Type : Original Article

Author

ali یاری نژاد

Doctoral student of private law at the University of Judicial Sciences

Abstract

In Islamic law, a person's lien on someone else's property is either a trust or a surety, the usurper and usurper is considered to have bad faith and enmity with the surety and has absolute responsibility, and the same rule applies to the transgressive and guilty trustee. There is no doubt in the course of guarantee regarding the loss of property caused by the actions of the usurper, but the problem is that even though the person has a guarantee (usurper or trustee), but the loss of property cannot be attributed to him in any way. In this case, famous jurists and scholars According to some people, there is a consensus on the guarantee and responsibility of the individual, but according to the analytical-library study, there is no solid reason in the opinion of the famous jurists, and even in the case of the real usurper with malicious intent, while maintaining that he is responsible for the incidents caused by the authority of Cairo, In cases where there is no attribution in the loss of property, he believed in allocation and lack of guarantee. As the opinion of some contemporary jurists is based on this matter, and the civil laws of Muslim countries also believe in this matter.

Keywords

"The real usurper"

"aggressive possessor"

"absolute responsibility of usurper"

"The usurper with malicious intent"

Subjects