The judgeâs role in incompetentâs incapability | ||
| مطالعات فقه و حقوق اسلامی | ||
| Article 2, Volume 4, Issue 7, April 2013, Pages 29-42 PDF (166.4 K) | ||
| DOI: 10.22075/feqh.2017.1888 | ||
| Authors | ||
| B. Hajiazizi* ; Gh. Niazi; R. Hassankhani | ||
| Receive Date: 28 January 2017, Revise Date: 17 June 2026, Accept Date: 28 January 2017 | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Abstract The incompetent, also called immature, is someone whose occupying in his own possessions is not rational, whether he has not accomplished maturity after adolescence or has faced prodigality after maturity and adolescence. The incompetent is among the interdicted people, but the question is that just occuring the prodigality results in the incompetentâs interdiction and the elimination of the prodigality leads to the cancellation of the interdiction, or the constancy and cessation of interdiction needs the judgeâs sentence. The jurists have many different ideas about this matter. Some believe that interdiction gets confirmed as soon as prodigality occurs and eliminates as it obviates they also claim that there is no need to judgeâs sentence. Others believe that whether confirmation or elimination of interdiction is based on the judgeâs sentence. There are also some who believe that the judgeâs sentence is not necessary in the confirmation of interdiction but essential to eliminate it. Another group believes that just further confirmation of interdiction and not its elimination needs the judgeâs sentence. Finally, there is a group of jurists who believe that the interdiction due to failing to accomplish maturity and facing prodigality after maturity are different. They believe that in the first case, judgeâs sentence is not needed whether to confirm or eliminate interdiction, but it should be present for both actions in the latter. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| interdiction; incompetent; mature; judge; prodigality connected to immaturity | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 2,043 PDF Download: 1,074 |
||