The Analysis of Art.651 of the Civil Code of Iran

If within a loan contract sets out a condition that after a period of specified (fixed) time the loaner has been a right to demand repayment and the borrower has responsibility to return, among the Islamic jurists there is no agreement if it is valid or invalid. The origin of these two opinions is the different attitudes toward the obligation and permissible or allowed. In response to the late problem, there are three opinions should be investigated in Imami jurisprudence. The well-known Shia jurists believe that the loan contract is a mutual obligation. But some others believe that it is a mutual allowable and the third group believes that it is obliged from the loaner and permissible from borrower. The most of who accept the obligation of the contract believe that the condition of time within the loan contract is void and majority of them accept that it does not cause the void of the contract. Contrary to them who accept the permissible of the contract and condition believe that the effect of this condition is not force able and for being forcible they suggest that it should be included among the other obliged contracts. Although the author like other famous jurists accepts the mutual obliged but contrary to the most of jurists believes that the condition of time in this contract is a permissible condition and therefore setting it out within the contract causes the obligation to be followed.