Civil Jurisprudence Doctrines

Research Article

The Subject Matter of the Obligation and the Subject Matter of the Contract (Unity or Duality)

Rouhollah Akhoundi; Mostafa Shahbazi

Volume 18, Issue 33 , August 2026, Pages 11-39

https://doi.org/10.30513/cjd.2025.6210.1979

Abstract

The correct definition and description of concepts in legal science play an unparalleled role in the accurate analysis of issues, the swift resolution of related problems, and legal ... Read More The correct definition and description of concepts in legal science play an unparalleled role in the accurate analysis of issues, the swift resolution of related problems, and legal education. One of the significant and disputed issues that has remained unresolved, and constitutes the main question of this article, is whether, despite the conceptual distinction between "obligation" and "contract", their subject matters are also distinct. In other words, which of the four logical relations applies between the subject matter of a contract and that of contractual obligations? There is considerable disagreement among legal scholars on this matter. Some prominent figures maintain the unity, while others advocate the duality of the subject matter of obligation and the subject matter of contract. It appears that neither of these two views can be entirely correct in absolute terms, and each only expresses a part of the reality. In this theoretical and analytical research, we have concluded that not only must a distinction be made between the subject matter of transfer contracts and that of obligational contracts, but also a clear differentiation must be drawn between the infinitive and the passive participle/product meanings of these two terms. In effect, in transfer contracts, the subject matter of the obligation and the subject matter of the contract are identical. However, in obligational contracts, the subject matter of the obligation (in its product sense) differs from the subject matter of the contract. The subject matter of the obligation in obligational contracts is an asset or an act, whereas the subject matter of the contract in these contracts is the legal responsibility and liability of the obligated party. Consequently, it must be stated that the relationship between the subject matter of the obligation and the subject matter of the contract in transfer contracts is equality, while in obligational contracts this relationship is nothing other than distinctness/opposition

Research Article

Feasibility of Creditors' Intervention in the Transactions of a Debtor Claiming Insolvency

Seyyed Mohammad Asadinejad; Sahand Nejadi Ijadkar

Volume 18, Issue 33 , August 2026, Pages 41-70

https://doi.org/10.30513/cjd.2025.6996.2062

Abstract

Transactions conducted by a debtor claiming insolvency (Muʿsir) may lack one of the essential conditions for the validity of contracts, thus rendering them void (Bāṭil) or non-enforceable. ... Read More

Research Article

An Analytical Study on the Transferability of the Property or Its Benefits in Digital Currencies

Setare Ayoubi; Sam Moahammadi; Seyed Hasan Hoseini Moghadam

Volume 18, Issue 33 , August 2026, Pages 71-98

https://doi.org/10.30513/cjd.2025.6532.2014

Abstract

The present study adopts an analytical approach to examine the legal and jurisprudential challenges of digital currencies in the formation of traditional contracts such as sale, lease, ... Read More The present study adopts an analytical approach to examine the legal and jurisprudential challenges of digital currencies in the formation of traditional contracts such as sale, lease, and loan. The focus on these contracts is due to their status as the most important instruments for the transfer of assets within the legal and jurisprudential system. Considering the accepted definitions in civil law and jurisprudential texts, which regard these contracts as transferring the specific asset or its usufruct, the central question is: to what extent are digital currencies, with their non-tangible and digital nature, compatible with this framework? Furthermore, the seizability of digital currencies within the framework of Islamic jurisprudence and Iranian civil law will be examined. In this regard, the present research focuses on the general criteria and existing overarching rules in law and jurisprudence, attempting to adapt digital currencies to these criteria, rather than creating new criteria for their legitimacy or illegitimacy. The research findings indicate that in Islamic jurisprudence, digital currencies, due to possessing monetary value, transferability, and legitimate use, can be the subject of a sale or loan contract. However, leasing these assets faces challenges due to ambiguity in defining their specific and legitimate usufruct. In this context, the principle of permissibility can also be considered when examining the legitimacy of these transactions. Nevertheless, some jurists believe that transactions involving digital currencies are speculative and fraught with risk, and their validity cannot be accepted. In this regard, attention to the fatwa of the Supreme Leader is also necessary. In Iranian civil law, the sale and loan of digital currencies are accepted due to their economic value and transferability, but their lease requires a revision of the classical principles and conditions of lease contracts. On the other hand, the seizure of digital currencies as an executive measure in Iranian civil and criminal law faces legal and technical obstacles due to the unique characteristics of these assets, such as anonymity, decentralization, and dependence on technological platforms. This research emphasizes the necessity of drafting clear and comprehensive regulations for this domain to ensure both their religious and legal legitimacy and the executive efficiency of these regulations. Given the existing challenges, it is proposed that the legislator, considering various jurisprudential viewpoints, especially the fatwa of the Supreme Leader, draft regulations that, while preserving public interests, prevent the misuse of these financial instruments. The research method in this article is descriptive-analytical.

Research Article

An Analysis of Human Testing and Vaccination in the Jurisprudence of the Two Major Islamic Denominations

Mohammad Bolhasani

Volume 18, Issue 33 , August 2026, Pages 99-125

https://doi.org/10.30513/cjd.2025.5637.1920

Abstract

The spread of contagious diseases poses serious jurisprudential-legal challenges to the health system and the life of human societies. Human testing and the mass administration of emerging ... Read More

Research Article

An Analysis of the Legal Status of Selling Natural Hair

Mohammad Hoseein Taghipour Darzi Naghibi; Vadieh Tahmasbpour; Hossein Khanlari Bahnamiri

Volume 18, Issue 33 , August 2026, Pages 127-166

https://doi.org/10.30513/cjd.2025.6965.2060

Abstract

Although extensive research has been conducted on the transaction of human body parts, no scientific research has been observed regarding the legal status of trading in natural hair. ... Read More

Research Article

Jurisprudential and Legal Explanation of the Possibility of Agreeing on the Retroactive Effect of Contract Termination

Amirbbas Askari

Volume 18, Issue 33 , August 2026, Pages 167-200

https://doi.org/10.30513/cjd.2025.4889.1828

Abstract

Termination of a contract has effect for the future, and the contract remains valid until a cause for its termination occurs. Therefore, upon the exercise of termination, the contract ... Read More

Research Article

Evaluating the Extent of the Owner's Liability for Damages Caused by the Act of a Domestic Cat

Mahdiyeh Ghanizadeh; Abd al-samad Aliabadi

Volume 18, Issue 33 , August 2026, Pages 201-225

https://doi.org/10.30513/cjd.2026.7185.2078

Abstract

Considering the requirements of modern life and the domestic keeping of cats, an issue that necessitates particular examination is the owner's liability for damages caused by the animal. ... Read More Considering the requirements of modern life and the domestic keeping of cats, an issue that necessitates particular examination is the owner's liability for damages caused by the animal. Therefore, the present study, using a descriptive-analytical method and comparing the opinions of Imamiyyah and Sunni jurists, is an attempt to evaluate the extent of the owner's liability for damages caused by the act of a domestic cat. The research findings indicate a jurisprudential disagreement on this issue. Although the majority of jurists hold the opinion of non-liability of the owner for damages caused by the animal's behavior, this view faces serious criticism. Upon close examination of the evidences for the various viewpoints on this matter, what is concluded is the strict liability of the owner for damages arising from the animal's behavior, as the preferred view in this issue. On the other hand, the legislator's approach in this regard is also varied. In the Civil Code, the view of fault-based liability is confirmed, while in the Penal Code, the view of liability conditioned upon the animal's harmful nature is adopted. This situation, in turn, necessitates a revision of the law and the establishment of a uniform procedure on this issue.The findings of the research indicate a jurisprudential disagreement on this issue. Although the majority of jurists hold that the owner is not liable for damages caused by the animal’s behavior, this view faces serious criticism. A thorough analysis of the various arguments suggests that strict liability of the owner for the damages caused by the animal’s behavior is the preferred opinion in this matter.On the other hand, the legislator's approach differs in this regard: the Civil Code adopts a fault-based liability model, while the Penal Code considers liability conditional on the animal’s aggressive nature. This divergence highlights the need for legal reform and harmonization of legal practice concerning this issue.

Research Article

Jurisprudential and Legal Reasons for the Forfeiture of the Guarantor's Right of Recourse Against the Principal Debtor in the Case of a Debt Gift to the Authorized Guarantor, Before Payment of the Debt

Mohammad Jaber Ghanbari; Mahdi Kazemi

Volume 18, Issue 33 , August 2026, Pages 227-255

https://doi.org/10.30513/cjd.2025.7204.2083

Abstract

Undoubtedly, as stipulated in Article 719 of the Civil Code, the release (Ibrā') of the guarantor (Ḍāmin) results in the forfeiture of his right of recourse against the principal ... Read More Undoubtedly, as stipulated in Article 719 of the Civil Code, the release (Ibrā') of the guarantor (Ḍāmin) results in the forfeiture of his right of recourse against the principal debtor. However, the ruling for the scenario where the creditor gifts the debt to an authorized guarantor is not provided for in the law. The purpose of this article is to state the jurisprudential and legal reasons for the lack of a right of recourse for the guarantor against the principal debtor before the payment of the debt and after the gift of the debt to the guarantor. The findings of the research, which is based on a descriptive-analytical method, show that according to the narrations (Riwāyāt) in jurisprudence and the famous opinion of the jurists, given the gratuitous/charitable nature of the guarantee contract, the origin of the guarantor's right of recourse against the principal is the damage caused by the guarantor's payment of the debt. Furthermore, before the debt is paid, the occurrence of harm to the guarantor is not certain, and therefore it is not subject to the rule of no-harm (Qā'idat Lā Ḍarar) as the basis for the guarantor's right of recourse. From a legal perspective, the arguments of those in favor of the right of recourse in this specific scenario are flawed. On one hand, the criterion of the ruling in Article 712 cannot be relied upon, because the guarantor's recourse after inheriting the debt was not without consideration, but after a gift of the debt, it is without consideration and without the guarantor incurring any loss. On the other hand, due to the lack of joint and several liability and the extinguishment of the creditor's (principal's) right of recourse against the principal debtor, the subrogation of the guarantor after the gift of the debt would also be meaningless. Therefore, the criterion of the second part of Article 321 on usurpation is also not applicable to this case. Moreover, granting the guarantor a right of recourse in this situation would mean an increase in his assets—a matter that is contrary to the purpose of legislating the contract of guarantee in jurisprudence and civil law. This is because Article 709 stipulates that the condition for recourse is the loss resulting from the payment of the debt.

Research Article

The Pathology of the Intensification of Restrictions on Private Ownership in Iran from a Jurisprudential and Legal Perspective

Shahram Mohammadi; Begard Teimouri; Ebad Rouhi

Volume 18, Issue 33 , August 2026, Pages 257-294

https://doi.org/10.30513/cjd.2025.7173.2077

Abstract

Private ownership, as one of the fundamental rights of individuals, plays a pivotal role within the legal system. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, the continuing trend of intensifying ... Read More

Research Article

A Jurisprudential and Legal Analysis of the Validity of Ambiguous Dowry and Mechanisms for Resolving Its Uncertainty with Emphasis on Judicial Practice

Ahmad Behi; Mohammad Mehryar

Volume 18, Issue 33 , August 2026, Pages 295-330

https://doi.org/10.30513/cjd.2025.7049.2068

Abstract

One of the major challenges in the Iranian legal and jurisprudential system is the issue of ambiguous dowry, particularly in cases where the dowry is stipulated in general or undivided ... Read More

Research Article

Rereading the Concept and Rulings of Customary Guarantee in Imami Jurisprudence and Iranian Law as a Framework for Solving Emerging Issues: A Look at the Opinions of Seyed Yazdi and Professor Ayatollah Mohaghegh Damad

Seyyed Nima Norouzi

Volume 18, Issue 33 , August 2026, Pages 331-366

https://doi.org/10.30513/cjd.2025.7227.2085

Abstract

The contract of guarantee has long been regarded as a fundamental institution in Imami jurisprudence, traditionally defined on the basis of Naql al-Dhimma (transfer of liability). According ... Read More The contract of guarantee has long been regarded as a fundamental institution in Imami jurisprudence, traditionally defined on the basis of Naql al-Dhimma (transfer of liability). According to this view, the debt is moved from the original debtor to the guarantor. While this classical doctrine gained a firm place in juristic tradition, it has lost much of its practical relevance in light of modern social and economic realities. In contemporary contexts—such as bank guarantees, construction contracts, property insurance, and credit arrangements—the traditional model no longer provides an adequate explanation. To address this gap, contemporary scholars have advanced the idea of "customary guarantee" (Damān ‘Urfī). Unlike the classical model, it is not based on transferring debt but on the guarantor's undertaking to indemnify losses or ensure fulfillment of obligations. This type of guarantee operates as a contractual or even unilateral commitment, validated by custom and practical necessity, and thus differs fundamentally from the dhimma-based framework. In this regard, Seyed Muhammad Kazim al-Ṭabatabaʾi al-Yazdi played a pioneering role by recognizing the legitimacy of guarantees beyond strict debt transfer in works such as al-‘Urwa al-Wuthqā and his glosses on al-Makāsib. In modern Iran, Ayatollah Seyed Mustafa Mohaghegh Damad reformulated these insights into legal language within his General Theory of Conditions and Obligations, thereby introducing them into legal doctrine. By examining the historical development of the guarantee contract and analyzing the views of Seyed Yazdi, and by comparing the classical and customary forms of guarantee, this study concludes that redefining guarantee in light of custom and current needs is compatible with Imami jurisprudence. This approach can enhance the dynamism of the jurisprudence of transactions and foster its convergence with contemporary legal systems.

Research Article

Conflicting Transactions with a Binding Offer in Imami Jurisprudence and Iranian Law

Javad Niknejad

Volume 18, Issue 33 , August 2026, Pages 367-404

https://doi.org/10.30513/cjd.2026.8181.2186

Abstract

Offers are divided into two categories: simple and binding. In a binding offer, the offeror cannot withdraw from the offer, because said offer, by implication entails the deprivation ... Read More

Volume 18 (2026)

Volume 17 (2025)

Volume 16 (2024)

Volume 15 (2023)

Volume 14 (2022)

Volume 13 (2021)

Volume 12 (2020)

Volume 11 (2018-2019)

Volume 10 (2017-2018)

Volume 9 (2016-2017)

Volume 8 (2015-2016)

Volume 7 (2014-2015)

Volume 6 (2013-2014)

Volume 5 (2012-2013)

Volume 4 (2011-2012)

Volume 3 (2010-2011)

Volume 2 (2009-2010)

Volume 1 (2008-2009)

Volume & Issue: Volume 18, Issue 33, August 2026, Pages 1-404

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract