نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 استادیار گروه فقه و مبانی حقوق اسلامی، دانشکده الهیات و معارف اسلامی، دانشگاه ایلام، ایلام، ایران(نویسنده مسئول)
2 طاهر علی محمدی، دانشیار گروه فقه و مبانی حقوق اسلامی، دانشکده الهیات و معارف اسلامی، دانشگاه ایلام، ایلام، ایران.
3 دانشیار گروه فقه و مبانی حقوق اسلامی، دانشکده الهیات و معارف اسلامی، دانشگاه ایلام، ایلام، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژه‌ها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
According to Article 279 of the Iranian Code of Civil Procedure: “Whenever the plaintiff, in an action against a deceased, is the heir of the right holder and presents evidence to prove his claim, he must also take an oath.” Such an oath, which the plaintiff is required to take in addition to presenting evidence, is known in Imami jurisprudence as the secondary oath. However, Imami jurists have differing opinions on how to administer such an oath, and their writings contain five distinct theories. In the aforementioned legal regulation, although the principle of the secondary oath is accepted, following jurisprudential opinions, the manner of taking the oath remains unspecified and vague. Therefore, considering the importance of the discussion, this study, after establishing the necessity of taking the oath by the heir of the right holder, analyzes the existing opinions and ultimately adopts the view that the method of taking the oath by the heir of the right holder is exactly like that of the original party (estate-leaver or mūrith). In this explanation, the heir, in order to prove his claim, is obliged to take the secondary oath based on certainty and conviction, just like the original party (mūrith), and in the absence of certainty, he does not have the right to take the oath. In this regard, jurisprudential arguments such as istiṣḥāb (presumption of continuity) cannot be invoked.”
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
)