بررسی فقهی بهره مندی متوفیان بدهکار از بیت المال
محورهای موضوعی : فقه و مبانی حقوق اسلامی
1 - دانشیار گروه حقوق، واحد قائمشهر، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، قائمشهر، ایران.
کلید واژه: دیون, متوفی معسر, مسؤولیت حاکم اسلامی, بیت المال.,
چکیده مقاله :
تتبع به عمل آمده حکایت از آن دارد که برخي از متوفیان، بدون آن که در زمان حیات، فساد و تقصیری مرتکب شده باشند گاهی در فعالیت¬های اقتصادی و شغلی دچار ورشکستگی شده و به تبع آن، طلبکارانی از خود بجا می¬گذارند. اکنون با این فرض که دیگر ماترکی برای ادای دیون متوفی نمانده باشد و ورثه¬ها و عدول مسلمین نیز از پرداخت دیون این قبیل افراد، امتناع بورزند این پرسش به ذهن متبادر است آیا حاکم اسلامی که دربرخی موارد از متوفی معسر بلا وارث منتفع است، تعهدی در قبال پرداخت این قبیل دیون ندارد؟ پژوهش حاضر که به روش توصیفی- تحلیلی سامان یافته است، بر این عقیده تاكيد مي¬ورزد که پرداخت بدهی متوفی معسر از سهم غارمین توسط حاکم اسلامی با عنایت به اطلاق و عموم آیات، روایات و دلایلی چون صیانت از امنیت اقتصادی کشور و با تمسک به قواعدای چون «لایبطل حق مسلم» و «من له الغنم و علیه العزم» توجیه پذیر است؛ مشروط بر این که دیون متوفی معسر از باب اتفاق بوده با تقلب، تقصیر و فساد محقق نشده باشد.
Extended abstract Introduction: In view of the fact that when a person dies leaving no property to discharge their debts, neither the guardian nor the heirs of the deceased bear any legal obligation to pay those debts, it is noteworthy that Article 226 of the Law on Probate Affairs stipulates: “The heirs of the deceased are not required to pay the creditors anything beyond the estate of the deceased”. Although moral principles dictate that the children, relatives, or reputable members of the Muslim community-if financially able-should charitably assist in repaying the debts of an insolvent decedent, such moral expectations do not create any binding legal or religious duty. If, the heirs or charitable members of Muslim community refuse to pay the debts of an insolvent decedent from their personal assets, and considering that the Islamic ruler (ḥākim-e islāmī) acts for the general welfare of the Muslim community-and may, in certain cases, benefit from and inherit the property of a deceased Muslim who dies wealthy but without heirs under the legal maxim “al-ḥākim wāriṯ man lā wāriṯ lah” (the ruler is the heir of one who has no heir)-a number of legal questions arise: Does the Islamic ruler bear any responsibility for the payment of legitimate debts owed by an insolvent deceased Muslim? Would recognizing the liability of the public treasury (bayt al-māl) to pay these debts not open the door to potential abuse of rights by certain individuals? Since Islamic compassion requires that creditors under such exceptional circumstances receive support and assistance from the Islamic state, and because social justice and economic security cannot tolerate indifference toward this class of wronged creditors, it becomes necessary to examine the general and specific evidence of the Qurʾān, ḥadīth, and relevant jurisprudential principles in order to provide a reasoned and coherent answer to this issue. As for the research background and the innovative aspect of the present study, it can be said that no independent and comprehensive work has yet been conducted on this subject. Accordingly, this study, mindful of the financial distress suffered by certain rightful creditors of insolvent deceased debtors, aims to investigate the religious and legal sources in order to substantiate the proposed hypothesis—namely, that under certain conditions a portion of such debts may justly be paid from the funds of the Islamic public treasury. Methodology: The present study has been conducted using a descriptive–analytical method, employing a documentary research approach. Data collection was carried out through the note-taking technique, based on extensive consultation of reputable physical and digital libraries. Furthermore, in compiling the theoretical discussions, the study has drawn upon existing scholarly articles that address the issue of the social responsibility of Islamic rulers in relation to the welfare and interests of the Muslim community. Results: The findings of this research indicate that the Islamic ruler bears responsibility for the collective welfare of the Muslim community, and that the principle of social liability of Islamic governors regarding the livelihood and well-being of the people is a matter of consensus among jurists. However, the scope and nature of the ruler’s liability in relation to the debts of insolvent deceased persons remain subjects of scholarly disagreement.Some jurists, invoking the jurisprudential maxim “al-muflis fī amān Allāh” (“the insolvent is under the protection of God”), hold that the ruler is not liable for such debts—drawing analogy to the exemption of the ruler from paying a deceased husband’s unpaid dowry from the public treasury (bayt al-māl). Others, however, have qualified such liability, asserting that governmental responsibility may arise only when the debtor’s insolvency has not resulted from negligence or moral corruption in the creation of the debt. Conclusion: Economic security constitutes one of fundamental indicators of a nation’s national security, ensuring that individuals within society may engage in economic activities free from anxiety, or uncertainty. Accordingly, the commitment of an Islamic government to guarantee the recovery of legitimate claims-particularly those not arising from deliberate misconduct, corruption, or fraud-may be regarded as a manifestation of the nation’s maturity and institutional vitality. Islamic government, founded upon moral principles such as compassion toward Muslims, cooperation, mutual assistance, and the preservation of public welfare, bears a moral and legal responsibility toward certain classes of debtors, such as insolvent deceased persons. Abandoning such individuals would contradict the maxim “al-muflis fī amān Allāh” (the insolvent is under the protection of God). the preservation of economic security, which serves as a foundation for both national and social stability, constitutes an inescapable necessity for any Islamic state. The payment of the debts of an insolvent deceased person from the public treasury (bayt al-māl) may be justified by invoking the general implication of Qur’ān 9:60 (Sūrat al-Tawbah), whereby such individuals may be considered among the “ghārimīn” (those burdened by debt) and hence eligible recipients of charitable allocations (ṣadaqāt). Numerous narrative traditions (aḥādīth) support the liability of the public treasury with respect to the debts of Muslims. For instance, it has been transmitted that if a person dies leaving debts behind, it becomes the duty of the Imam of the Muslims to settle those debts. Reliance on several jurisprudential principles (qawāʿid fiqhiyya) may further substantiate this claim, including: “man lahu al-ghunm fa-ʿalayhi al-ghurm” (he who benefits must also bear the burden), “talāzum al-namāʾ wa al-dark” (growth and risk are concomitant), “al-kharāj bi-l-ḍamān” (entitlement follows liability), “lā yubṭalu dam al-muslim” (the rights of a Muslim may not be rendered void), “al-ḥākim wāriṯ man lā wāriṯ lah” (the ruler inherits from one who has no heir), and “nafy ḍarar ghayr mutadārak” (the elimination of uncompensated harm). To safeguard and compensate this category of insolvent deceased debtors, the Islamic state must enact fair and conditional legislative measures, as assuming unconditional responsibility for such debts could create opportunities for potential abuse or fraudulent claims by opportunistic individuals. Hence, it is essential that governmental liability for these debts be subject to specific and verifiable conditions. It is therefore recommended that: (a)the extent of the public treasury’s liability toward such debts be clearly defined; (b)in order to prevent corruption, collusion, and fictitious contracts, a specialized committee, under the supervision of qualified experts, should investigate and verify the financial circumstances of insolvent deceased persons and the authenticity of the claimed debts; and (c)the establishment of insurance mechanisms, compensation funds, and benevolent or charitable institutions dedicated to assisting such individuals would constitute a constructive and practical measure toward fulfilling the principles of justice and compassion in Islamic governance.
قرآن کریم
ابن منظور، محمد (1405). لسان العرب. قم: نشر ادب الحوزه.
آخوند خراسانی، محمد کاظم (بی تا). کفایه الاصول. قم: موسسه آل البیت(ع).
برومند، شهرزاد و همکاران (1387). امنیت اقتصادی در ایران. تهران: مطالعات اقتصادی مرکز پژوهش¬های مجلس شورای اسلامی.
بوزان، باری (1378). مردم و دولت¬ها و هراس. تهران: پژوهشکده مطالعات راهبردی.
جعفری لنگرودی، محمدجعفر (1388). ترمینولوژی حقوق. تهران: انتشارات گنج دانش.
جعفری لنگرودی، محمدجعفر (1370). مکتب¬های حقوقی در حقوق اسلام. تهران: انتشارات گنج دانش.
حر عاملی، محمد بن حسن (1412). وسایل الشیعه. قم: موسسه آل البیت.
حسینی، سید هادی (1394). مسئولیت تبعی دولت در جبران ضررهای بلاجبران. تهران: تحقیقات حقوقی تطبیقی ایران و بین الملل.
حلی، فخر المحققین، محمد بن حسن بن یوسف (1387). ایضاح الفواید. قم: موسسه اسماعیلیان.
درگاهی، مهدی و عندلیبی، رضا (1394). حج و ولایت فقیه. تهران: انتشارات مشعر.
دهخدا، علی اکبر (1377). لغت¬نامه دهخدا. تهران: دانشگاه تهران.
راغب اصفهانی (1412). المفردات فی غریب القرآن. بیروت: دارالعلم.
سبزواری، عبدالاعلی (1413). مهذب الاحکام فی بیان الحلال و الحرام. قم: مکتب آیت الله سبزواری.
شهید ثانی (1410). الروضه البهیه. قم: کتاب فروشی داوری.
شیخ صدوق، ابن بابویه (1406). علل الشرایع. قم: النشر دار الشریف الرضی.
شیخ طوسی، ابوجعفر محمد بن حسن (1400). النهایه. بیروت: دارالکتاب العربی.
صفایی، سید حسین و امامی، اسدالله (1393). مختصر حقوق خانواده. تهران: نشر میزان.
طاهری، حبیب الله (1418). حقوق مدنی. قم: دفتر انتشارات اسلامی.
طبرسی، میرزا حسین (المحقق النوری) (1408). مستدرک الوسایل. بیروت: موسسه آل البیت علیه السلام.
غزالی، محمد بن محمد (1324). المستفصی من علم الاصول. بیروت: دار صادر.
طریحی، فخرالدین (1375). مجمع البحرین. تهران: انتشارت مرتضوی.
فیض، علیرضا (1378). فقه و مبادی اصول. تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.
فیومی، احمد بن محمد (1414). مصباح المنیر. قم: موسسه دار الهجره.
کلینی، ابوجعفر محمد بن یعقوب (1407). الکافی. تهران: دارالکتب الاسلامیه.
محقق حلی، جعفربن الحسن (1409). شرایع الاسلام. قم: موسسه اسماعیلیان.
محقق داماد، سید مصطفی (1376). قواعد فقه مدنی. تهران: انتشارات سمت.
موسوی خمینی، سید روح الله (1434). ولایت فقیه و حکومت اسلامی. تهران: موسسه تنظیم نشر آثار امام (ره).
موسوی خویی، سید ابوالقاسم (1410). تکمله المنهاج. قم: مدینه العلم.
مهرپور، حسین (1395). مطالبات زوجه و روش وصول آن. تهران: انتشارات جنگل.
میرشکاری، عباس (1394). طلب ممتاز. شرکت سهامی انتشار.
نراقی، احمد بن محمد مهدی (1321). عواید الایام. بی¬جا.
یزدانی، غلام رضا (1396). تأثیر اعسار بر مهریه زوجه. نشریه گفتمان حقوقی، شماره 32.
The Holy Qur’an.
Ibn Manẓūr, M., (1405 AH). Lisān al-ʿArab. Qom: Nashr Adab al-Ḥawzah.
Ākhūnd Khorāsānī, M. K., (n.d). Kifāyat al-Uṣūl. Qom: Muʾassasat Āl al-Bayt.
Boroumand, Sh., et al. (2008). Economic Security in Iran. Tehran: Majlis Research Center. (In Persian)
Buzan, B., (1999). People, States and Fear. Tehran: Center for Strategic Studies. (In Persian)
Jafari Langaroudi, Mohammad Jafar. (2009). Legal Terminology. Tehran: Ganj-e Danesh. (In Persian)
Jafari Langaroudi, M. J., (1991) Schools of Law in Islamic Jurisprudence. Tehran: Ganj-e Danesh. (In Persian)
Ḥurr al-ʿĀmilī, M. b. H., (1412 AH). Wasāʾil al-Shīʿa. Qom: Muʾassasat Āl al-Bayt.
Hosseinī, S.H., (2015). The State’s Subsidiary Liability for Uncompensated Damages. Tehran: Iranian and International Comparative Legal Studies. (In Persian)
Ḥillī, Fakhr al-Muḥaqqiqīn, Muḥammad b. Ḥasan b. Yūsuf. (2008). Īḍāḥ al-Fawāʾid. Qom: Muʾassasat Ismāʿīliyyān.
Dargāhī, M., & Andalībī, R., (2015). Ḥajj and the Guardianship of the Jurist. Tehran: Nashr-e Mashʿar. (In Persian)
Dehkhodā, A.A., (1998). Dehkhoda Dictionary. Tehran: University of Tehran. (In Persian)
Rāghib Iṣfahānī. (1412 AH). Al-Mufradāt fī Gharīb al-Qurʾān. Beirut: Dār al-ʿIlm.
Sabzawārī, ʿAbd al-Aʿlā. Muhadhdhab. (1413 AH). al-Aḥkām fī Bayān al-Ḥalāl wa-l-Ḥarām. Qom: Maktab Āyat Allāh Sabzawārī.
Shahīd Thānī. (1410 AH). Al-Rawḍah al-Bahiyyah. Qom: Kitābfurūshī Dāvarī.
Shaykh Ṣadūq (Ibn Bābawayh). (1406 AH). ʿIlal al-Sharāʾiʿ. Qom: Dār al-Sharīf al-Riḍā.
Shaykh Ṭūsī, Abū J. M. b. H., (1400 AH). Al-Nihāyah. Beirut: Dār al-Kitāb al-ʿArabī. (In Persian)
Ṣafāʾī, S. H., & Emāmī, A., (2014). A Concise Text on Family Law. Tehran: Nashr-e Mīzān. (In Persian)
Ṭāhirī, Ḥ. A., (1418 AH). Civil Law. Qom: Daftar-e Nashr-e Islāmī. (In Persian)
Ṭabarsī (al-Muḥaqqiq al-Nūrī), M. H., (1408 AH). Mustadrak al-Wasāʾil. Beirut: Muʾassasat Āl al-Bayt. (In Persian)
Ghazālī, M. b., Muḥammad, Al-M., (1945). min ʿIlm al-Uṣūl. Beirut: Dār Ṣādir.
Ṭurayḥī, Fakhr al-Dīn. (1996). Majmaʿ al-Baḥrayn. Tehran: Intishārāt Murtazavī.
Fayż, A., (1999). Jurisprudence and the Principles of Uṣūl. Tehran: University of Tehran Press. (In Persian)
Fayyūmī, A., b. M., (1414 AH). Miṣbāḥ al-Munīr. Qom: Muʾassasat Dār al-Hijrah.
Kulaynī, Abū J. M.b. Y., (1407 AH). Al-Kāfī. Tehran: Dār al-Kutub al-Islāmiyya.
Muḥaqqiq Ḥillī., J. b. al-Ḥasan. Sharāʾiʿ. (1409 AH). al-Islām. Qom: Muʾassasat Ismāʿīliyyān.
Muḥaqqiq Dāmād., S.M., (1997) Rules of Civil Jurisprudence. Tehran: SAMT Publications. (In Persian)
Mūsavī Khomeinī, S. R., (2013). Velāyat-e Faqīh wa Ḥukūmat-e Islāmī. Tehran: Institute for Compilation and Publication of Imam Khomeini’s Works. (In Persian)
Mūsavī Khūʾī, S.A., (1410 AH). Takmilat al-Minhāj. Qom: Madīnat al-ʿIlm.
Mehrpūr, H., (2016). Wife’s Claims and Methods of Collection. Tehran: Jangal Publications. (In Persian)
Mīrshakārī, A., (2015). Preferential Claims. Tehran: Sherkat-e Sahāmī Intishār. (In Persian)
Naraqī, Aḥmad b. M. M., (n.d).ʿAwāʾid al-Ayyām. n.p.
Yazdānī, Gholam Reza., (2017). The Effect of Insolvency on the Wife’s Dowry. Legal Discourse Journal, no. 32. (In Persian)
