inheritance

White marriage has been on the rise in the country, and therefore, examining its legal implications, particularly with regard to children born from such unions, is essential. Thus, the objective of the present article is to address the critical issue of what legal and jurisprudential consequences white marriage has on children. This descriptive-analytical article utilizes a library research method to examine the stated issue. The findings indicate that, considering that in a white marriage, the union is notlegally recognized, the marital relationship is neither legitimate nor legal, and any child born from such a relationship is considered a child of adultery. In white marriage, lineage does not form between the father and the child. The common descent between the child and the natural father in a white marriage is neither established nor attributed. However, lineage between the mother and the child is established. The natural child has no inheritance rights from the father. Therefore, neither the father inherits from the child, nor does the child inherit from the father. However, with regard to the mother, the child is attributed to her in terms of lineage, and both the mother inherits from the child and the child inherits from the mother. In permanent marriage, all financial responsibilities for the child's living expenses until a certain age depend on the child's gender and are borne by the father. However, in white marriage, the father has no legal obligation to pay for the child’s expenses. In fact, the mother is fully responsible for the child’s living expenses.

In a division of estate, some claims are raised by the litigants during or after the proceedings. Ambiguity of the law causes various disagreements in the judicial precedent, which sometimes may delays in the proceedings. These cases come in several forms and can have different effects. Some of them affect the amount of assets and liabilities of the estate, such as claim of ownership to the entirety or portion of the estate or claiming for a debt against the deceased. Some of them affect the number of heirs to whom the share of inheritance is allocated. For example, one or more heirs waive their rights to the estate in exchange for the money or property they receive from the deceased during his lifetime. Also, after the division, the heirs may claim imbalance (Ghabn) or defect in their share of the inheritance and thus affect the status of the division. Another issue that may be raised in the proceedings is the provisions enshrined in the Law Relating to the Requirement to Officially Register Immovable Property of 2024, and failure to comply with these provisions may result in the court’s refusal to accept the agreement on the division of the estate with a private deed. Here, while examining the judges' approach to dealing with these claims, an attempt is made to find a solution to overcome the above challenges.

The exact time of the events is often considered as the origin of the actualization of jurisprudence and legal laws. Ambiguity in the issue of time will lead to different legal disputes. These legal tensions increase when an unknown event is examined in relation to another known event. Famous majority of jurists, referring to the originality of the delay of the event in events that are measured in relation to the components of time, considered the time delay of the unknown event to be fixed and did not accept the inheritance belonging to the known party. As Article 874 of the Civil Code says: "If persons who have an inheritance between them die and the date of death of one of them is known and the other is unknown in terms of precedence and lateness, only the one whose date of death is unknown inherits from the other. But some other jurists considered it possible by weighing the unknown event with another known event, the proceeding of the principle of istiṣḥāb (presumption of continuity) in both known and unknown parties, and accepted the division of the inheritance in half between the parties and other heirs.In this writing, an attempt has been made by researching jurisprudential texts to criticize Article 874 in terms of its scholarly foundations and to investigate other jurisprudential opinions. As a result, after the proceeding of the two istiṣḥāb s and the realization of the conflict and the fall of the two principles, the inheritance belongs to the parties.

Making a will by the testator and accepting or disclaiming it by the donee and executor requires the intention. As a rule, the main element of any juridical act (whether a contract or a unilateral juridical act) is the intention. As one of the types of juridical acts, the testamentary (will) is not exempted from this rule. Indeed, as one of the judges of the Supreme Court of Virginia stated: “Intention being the life and soul of a will, it can hardly be imagined, I presume, that a man can make a will without intending to do so, or give by it more than he means to give".In Iranian law, when discussing the intention of individuals in a testamentary (will), it is important to take care of the intention of the testator, donee, and executor. Thus, in the will, on the one hand, the testator wants to bring his wish to the fore to manage the affairs and property after death. On the other hand, the donee or executor (of course with exceptions) can disclaim the will for various reasons. Therefore, the principle of sovereignty of the intention in the will can be examined from the angles above.American law is almost similar to Iranian law. In this legal system, when the principle of sovereignty of intention is considered from the perspective of the testator, the term "Freedom of Disposition" is used. On the contrary, when the topic under discussion is related to accepting or disclaiming the will by the donee, the term "Freedom of Inheritance" is used. Based on this, the principle of sovereignty of the testator's intention means the testator is a person who decides which property to transfer to whom and to what extent. The principle of sovereignty of the donee's intention also means the testator's authority to accept or at least disclaim the will. In this legal system, the "Testamentary Trust" is also used to fulfill the testamentary. In the testamentary trust, the testator accommodates the desired property to a person named "Trustee" so that he can manage the said property as a "Fiduciary" in favor of the "Beneficiary"."Principle of Sovereignty of the Intention" has now created these questions in the authors' minds: First, what is the basis of the principle of the sovereignty of the intention of the testator, the donee, and the executor? Second, can we imagine limitations for the intention of the testator, donee, and executor? If the answer is “Yes”, what are the examples of these limitations?In this article, by a comparative study of Imamia Jurisprudence, Iranian and American Law, an attempt is made to answer the above questions with a descriptive-analytical method and by referring to library sources. The reason for adapting this issue to American law can be summed up in two ways: First, in the legal system of this country, issues related to wills (especially the sovereignty of the will) are very important and have been examined in detail by scholars in the field of inheritance and wills. Second, Iranian jurists consider Imamia Jurisprudence when examining the challenges raised in the realm of wills, contrary to the approach that exists in the law of contracts and civil liability. Although this approach seems to be acceptable and good considering the Iranian civil law based on Islamic jurisprudence, but it cannot stop the curious mind from comparing the will rights with the western legal systems. In the end, after studying the history of the mentioned principle, the following results are obtained: First, the testator's natural right, his motivation, securing the interests of the testator, setting the behavior of potential heirs, and duty to social cooperation are considered the basis of the testator's will. Also, preserving the independence of the donee and executor, the cooperation of the donee in managing the distribution of the estate, and ensuring the interests of the testator are the basis of the sovereignty of the testator's will. Second, while the formalities of making a will, the necessary heirs, the mandatory rules, and religion are the limitations of the sovereignty of the intention of the testator, the formalities of accepting or disclaiming the will and killing the testator by the donee are the limitations of the sovereignty of the intention of the donee and executor.

This research has investigated the inheritance of the dead in an accident and the unknown date of death of each of them in terms of Imami jurisprudence and the legal system of Iran, Egypt and Iraq. The condition of inheritance is the life of the heir, even a moment after the death of the heir, and the rest of the cases, that is, when several people have died at the same time, there will be no inheritance among them. Contrary to the above principle, is the life of the heir, it is after the death of the heir. According to this ruling, persons who have died due to drowning, and the date or precedence of which is not known, are inherited. Considering the importance of the circle of heirs and considering the public rights of the people, the present study has been written by referring to jurisprudential texts and collecting the opinions of Imami jurists, general jurists and jurists with a descriptive-analytical approach and explaining comprehensiveness or lack thereof. The above sentence has been extended to similar cases.

The threefold verses of Sūrah ʾAl-Nisā provide a detailed legislative framework for the laws of inheritance. In understanding these verses, it is important to have an understanding of the history of inheritance as well. In the tradition of Arabs before the advancement of Islam, men who were blood relatives of the deceased directly or via other men, were considered his/her heirs. Closer relatives would deprive more distant ones of their inheritance rights. Inheritance verses were revealed in such a context, with the purpose of determining a share for those who were deprived of inheritance. Therefore, the Quran has not written the rules of inheritance in vacuum, but rather in accordance with the existing norms and as corrective measures. This cultural background reveals the reason why some relatives have specific shares of the inheritance while others do not have that. On the other hand, the allocation of certain shares from the inheritance to non-heir members in the pre-Islamic custom could lead to the deprivation of those without a share or the excess sum of shares beyond each other. It seems that in order to solve these challenges, one should use the proportion of the heir’s shares in comparison with each other instead of proportioning the shares of heirs to estate.

One of the most important financial rules is the inheritance of people from one another if the condition exists, which has always been prevalent across the nations and followers of holy religions. In this regard, Islamic Sharīʿa has provided precise legislations that determine the ranks and levels of heirs and their shares. According to most inheritance āyahs, all eligible individuals, regardless of their religious relations will inherit from one another. These general rules, supported unanimously by Farīqayn juriconsults are established with conclusive evidence; including reports indicating that non-believers will not inherit from Muslims. However, Islamic sects disagree whether Muslims inherit from non-believers or not. The majority of common juriconsults (Fuqahā-yi ʿĀmmih) believe that Muslims don’t inherit from non-believers. On the other hand, Imāmīya juriconsults and a few of the common juriconsults assert that Muslims do inherit from non-believers. The key point is that Imāmīya juriconsults unanimously believe that in case of the existences of a Muslim heir, the non-believing heir will be deprived of inheriting from a non-believer, even if the Muslim belongs to a more distant rank and the non-believer is closer in rank. The present research investigates the issue of the Muslim’s disinheritance from a non-believing heir, using the descriptive-analytical method and document analysis. Contrary to popular belief, the study concludes that arguments in favor of disinheritance are incomplete and the non-believing heir will inherit from the non-believer according to the general rules of inheritance.

artificial insemination has been among the challenging legal, medical and ethical issues in the contemporary period. Keeping in mind the opponents of this method of fertility, the supporters of this method from the point of view of jurisprudence and law also consider economic rights for children born from this method, which will be discussed in this research. 

The method of this article is analytical and descriptive and the research tool is library.

Ethical considerations:

 In writing this article, the ethical principles of referencing and quoting sources are of concern to the authors. 

The rights of children born from artificial insemination are reserved in jurisprudence and Islamic law for those who follow the scientific methods and the specificity of the guardian and the owner of the fetus or by respecting the rights of the owner of the womb in the matter of surrogate womb. The most important rights are benefiting from inheritance, meeting economic needs and equality with other citizens. 

Children born from artificial insemination will inherit from him if the owner of the sperm is known. However, if the sperm is from a stranger, the inheritance relationship and the provision of his economic needs are cut off from the owner of the sperm, and the child inherits from the mother, and the provision of his economic needs is the responsibility of the mother.

In the present century, due to the increasing technology and communication of more nations, intellectual property is very important and intellectual phenomena are considered not only as a knowledge, but also as capital. Therefore, considering their economic value and source of income, consequently, the transfer of these rights is also part of the legal issues. In the present study, while examining the legal and jurisprudential meaning of intellectual property rights and the nature and effects of these rights, the views and documents of Shiite and Sunni jurists as well as jurists have been expressed. One of the main examples of these transfers is the forced transfer of these rights, which occurs due to the death of the creator. But among the jurists, this issue has been addressed in the new issues and referendums; Examining the theories expressed, it can be seen that most jurists, both Shiites and Sunnis, have acknowledged the legitimacy of intellectual property rights and, based on the fact that these rights are among the financial rights and interests and are accepted by custom, it can be transferred to The heirs know.

The murder of the testator by the heir in testamentary disposition (testament for disposition of personal property), while challenging and lacking in research background, raises the question of whether such a murder can deprive the legatee of taking possession of the bequest (legacy). Three jurisprudential views based on the investigations can be considered in this regard that the murder of the testator by the legatee has no effect on taking position of the legatee according to the famous view and the legatee is still the owner of the bequest (legacy). However, two other views, in a little detail, are based on the fact that murdering a testator by the legatee as in the case of inheritance would prevent the legatee from the bequest (legacy). The present article considers the famous theory acceptable by using a descriptive-analytical method and using library resources, while critically analyzing and evaluating the jurisprudential fundamentals of the proposed views and also considers the prevention of the legatee from the bequest more acceptable by arguing that on the one hand, no evidence that stipulates the prevention of murdering from testamentary disposition (testament for disposition of personal property) and the absoluteness of verses, traditions and principle as the main reason for the famous point of view, each of them can be undermined in some ways and does not have the authority to prove the famous point of view.

Inheritance is sometimes by kinship and sometimes through relation by marriage (sabab). However, the Imamiyyah jurists believe that if a dead person has an heir who enjoys two reasons for inheritance, this person can take both of the shares, no matter whether these two or more reasons are relation by marriage or by kinship, or both or all the reasons are either kinship or marriage, provided that none of the reasons is preventing the other. Otherwise, the heir would only inherit based on the reason which prevents other possible reasons. In this paper, an analytical-descriptive method is used to prove that according to the existing evidence, inheritance of the heir for two reasons is specific to those cases in which one reason is relation by marriage and the other is by kinship. However, in cases where both reasons are by kinship, the heir would inherit both shares only in case the relations by kinship are considered as conventionally separate and distinctive.

The issue of grandchildren's inheritance in case of grandparent's death and the existence of the first heir is one of the cases that has been neglected by the legislator despite its high important especially in preventing family disputes and financial problem. Currently, based on the rule of closer relative, when a person dies earlier than her/his parents, her/his children will be deprived of their grandparents' inheritance if the grandparents have any other children which are alive at the time of their death. Although Imāmī jurisprudence accepts the inheritance of grandchildren as the successors of their parents or Qaem Maqam, In order to respond this question whether Qaem Maqam is being able to inherit in case of the existence of their aunts or uncles, this research has been done based on, hadiths and jurisprudential sources and indicated that none of the evidence cannot be in the contrary with the assumption of avoidance of grandchildren's inheritance along with the other heirs, in case of the death of one of their parents. Therefore, such inheritance could be considered for them.

In answer to the questions posed in respect of the distribution of inheritance between female and male heirs, under Iranian law, it can be argued that Iranian law, following Islamic-Shiite law, has adopted the fairest system of distribution in this respect. The responsibilities of each of woman and man in the family as well as the rights and protections given to them, as the creatures of God and His successors on the earth, must be taken into account when analyzing the inheritance distribution system. This paper argues that, under Iranian law, inheritance is distributed between male and female heirs in proportion to (1) the responsibilities and obligations that a man has with respect to his family (including providing maintenance for his wife and his children), the duty to defend the country and the duty of doing the preliminaries like military service and to (2) financial protection given to a woman including the dower, maintenance and equivalent remuneration for the work done  by the wife at home, that must be provided by the husband. In other words, the distribution of inheritance is not based on the gender of the heirs. This paper, by looking at the aims of God from the creation of mankind including women and men and by referring to the Quranic verses (such as beginning verses of Nisā chapter, Verse 189 of Arāf chapter and Verse 56 of Al-Dhārīyāt chapter, and the traditions narrated from the infallibles (peace be upon them) as well as the equality of all human beings before God and that no individual is preferred to another one except by righteousness, knowledge, faith and the right conduct, deals with the distribution of inheritance based on meeting the needs of woman and man and their financial responsibilities.A man in an Islamic society has a number of financial responsibilities including the payment of dower, as agreed by the spouses, and providing the living expenses of the wife, according to her social standing, and living expenses of his children. By taking into account the fact that a woman has no duty to do housework, she is also entitled to ask her husband to pay remuneration for her work. By explaining the different ways of distributing the inheritance between male and female heirs, according to the degree of their relationship with the deceased, the share of every female heir has been made clear.It should be noted, that in the inheritance distributing system, under Iranian law, the heirs are divided into three classes according the degree of the heirs' relationship with the deceased. For example, parents and children are among the first class; sisters and brothers as well as their children and grandparents are in the second class; and uncles and aunts as well as their children are in the third class. The first class prevents the second class and the second class prevents the third one from benefiting from inheritance. By taking into account the way of distributing the inheritance between the heirs in the three classes, it can be argued that:(1) In many cases the share of female and male heirs are equal. For example, the share of mother and husband from the deceased wife's property is equal. The share of father and mother, is one sixth of the child's property. Where the heirs are a sister and the husband, their shares would be equal. All maternal relatives like maternal brother and maternal sister as well as maternal uncles and aunts and their children would receive equal shares from the inheritance.(2) In certain cases, the share of female heir is higher than that of male heir. For example, where one daughter and the husband are the heirs of the deceased, the daughter would receive more than the husband. Where the heirs of the deceased are the husband, father and mother, the mother would receive more than the father. Where the sister and maternal grandfather are the heirs of the deceased, the sister would receive more the maternal grandfather. (3) In certain cases, however, the share of male heirs is more than the share of female heirs.The most important point that must be taken into account in the distribution of inheritance between the heirs is that the distribution has a direct relation to the obligations and responsibilities that each of woman and man has in the family life and in the society.  No attention is paid to the gender and the natural value of female and male heirs in the distribution of the inheritance.

Adoption is one of the most important issues that has received special attention in all legal systems. The purpose of this article is to examine the financial obligations of guardians towards the adopted child in the light of jurisprudence and Iranian law.

This research is of theoretical type and the research method is descriptive-analytical and the method of data collection is library and has been done by referring to documents, books and articles.

The findings of the present study show that the approach of fiqh to the situation of the adopted child is a traditional approach and considering the principle of good faith, However, due to the changes that have taken place at the community level, the legislator has become more sensitive to the financial obligations of guardians. The main reason for this is the difference between the main basis of adoption in fiqh and Iranian legal system.

Ethical Considerations:

 In order to organize this research, while observing the authenticity of the texts, honesty and fidelity have been observed.

The main basis of adoption in the first place in fiqh, the principle of benevolence and the basis of its rules are mainly in the framework of worship; Whereas in Iranian law, due to the abuses that may be committed against the adopted child in practice, the main basis of adoption in the first place is the protection of the adopted child and the lack of attention to the principle of benevolence by the guardians.

In a taking possession will, heirs of testator are forbidden to possess property that is subject of a will. There is no distinction, based upon different foundations, among reasons for such prohibition and under different foundations like transferring, appearance, and no need for an acceptance, the result is forbidding heirs from possession of property. The reason for above point is that a testator has an especial right over one- third of his property, therefore, till the time of rejection or acceptance of the will his legal heirs are not permitted to use the testator’s property. For such a limitation, there is no difference either the testator die or his property transferred to his residuary. Under this foundation that after dying a person his legal heirs becomes owner of the testator’s property, so it is possible to accept such a result for them in the case under discussion, since there many examples that a testator unable to transfer his ownership upon his property to a third person residuary. In all those cases, like conditional sale contracts and mortgage, a common factor for forbidden a testator is an implying conditions to save property or destroying it by the owner; and a seller would be able to recover the same property or has a right to return it to him by a buyer as well as a mortgager would be able to recover his money by selling the mortgage. In all those cases mentioned in above, a person who is obliged to keep a property itself or has no right to possess it. Because, possession of a property is a matter that is inconsistent with the main purpose of doing legal activities namely a passion either in a form of transferring or destroying it, or condition for saving a property directly or by implication. Under the “Imamiyyah” Jurisprudence, it is admitted that until the time of rejection or acceptance of a will by a residuary, those who are testators of a will have not any right to possess the property of a dead person; of course, this is not a rule that easily to accept it since it is in contradiction to rules of ownership and right of rejection to accept a will. In this article, it is tried to support a reason (s) for a prohibition of possession of a testator’s property against those above rules.

The famous jurists of the Imami, based on the traditions that negate the lineage and inheritance between the child of adulterine and the natural parents, considered his heir in case he does not have a wife and children, the infallible Imam (a.s.) or his successor, and the legislator has also stated the same ruling in Article 553 of the Islamic Penal Code and declared  it exclusively for blood money, while it can be inferred from the authentic traditions of this chapter, the opposite of the popular saying. In addition to that, the ambiguity in the concept of adulterine and its verification method spreads from jurisprudence to the aforementioned law and makes the judge face the doubt of recognizing the adulterine child, and necessarily in the cases presented, the parents are still presented as the heirs of the adulterine child.Therefore, for the famous saying and the mentioned legal article, even on the assumption of no defect in the expression of the ruling, it is not expected to work much, unless the jurists and, accordingly, the legislator, resolve the ambiguity of the ruling and the issue with some limitations

For some criminal acts, the Holy Legislator (God as the law-giver) has mentioned some ancillary punishments in addition to the principal punishment. Murder is considered as an impediment to inheriting anything out of the estate of the murdered person if it is deliberate or out of their blood money(Diyah) if it is not deliberate, i.e. manslaughter. The idea that murder prevents a murderer, just like the case of inheriting, from being a beneficiary of the murdered person’s will is in need of jurisprudential and legal analysis. The issue lacks any explicit statement in our sources of Islamic narrations and legal articles, hence it was tried to find the taste of the legislator by examining similar subjects such as the murderer heir, the validity of the content of a will in case of suicide committed by the testator, or a liberated slave who is the murderer of his/her master and the spirit of the law was utilized for discovering the superior opinion in legal doctrine. Detailed examination based on the chronological order of making a will and the oppressive intentional deadly act, as well as detailed inspection based on the ability to modify the will after a deadly act, leads us to this conclusion that in case of any deadly act by the legatee after a will is made and also of the inability of the testator or his/her lack of opportunity to modify the content of the will after the deadly act, the legatee is sentenced to testamentary deprivation.

The religion of Islam, as the most perfect divine religion, always pays special attention to the status of man and the preservation of human dignity. In authentic Islamic and jurisprudential documents, according to the instructions made in the Holy Quran, human beings have material and spiritual rights from the time of sperm formation and coagulation as an adult, and a creature is considered to have the right to life and respect. The legislator in domestic law, following the religion of Islam by modeling valid Islamic documents, considers the fetus to have rights, and from the time of fertilization of the sperm by issuing the sanctity of abortion and issuing a performance guarantee for the perpetrators of this act, supports the life of the fetus and, after granting this right, considers him entitled to other rights such as the right to health and the right to money. However, in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, as a comprehensive document on the recognition of the rights of the child, without mentioning the fetus and the period of pregnancy, only in the first paragraph of Article 6 of this document, member states are required to recognize the inherent right of all children. Other international instruments, such as the Introduction to the Universal Declaration of the Rights of the Child, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, refer to the period of pregnancy and the fetus. However, there is no text to grant financial or material rights to the fetus or to recognize her/his right to life, and the authors of these documents have only supported the child to prevent her death and stillbirth.

Jurisprudential analysis of the unpopular views of Sheikh Sadouq on inheritance Sheikh Sadouq is one of the fourth-century jurists in a period that is related to the absence of the Imam. Almost all jurisprudential fields have opinions contradictory to the famous Imamiyyah jurisprudence. The authors of this paper examined the legal jurisprudence of their subjects on inheritance and showed that Sadouq’s five cases of inheritances are: 1- Inheritance of not having child of child in the presence of a deceased parent. 2- Partnership between grandpa and grandchild in inheriting deceased property. 3- Inheriting the mother of a deceased woman by imagining one-sixth spouse as a share and the rest by return. 4- If the sole heir is his wife, the woman inherits a quarter of the property at the time of Imam's presence and, in absentia, will inherit all. 5- Inheritance freed from liberator. The result of this research is to show that the opinions of the not famous jurisprudents, including Sheikh Saduq, also have valid and reliable narrative support. Therefore, their views appear to be able to stand up to prominent promises and can be effective in Iranian law and may be a factor in changing the inheritance of civil law disputes, which have largely followed prominent pronouncements.

Islam and the law of many countries, including Iranian Civil Law, agree that the murderer is not entitled to the inheritance of the murdered heir. The scope of dispute is only about the limits of this deprivation and its extension or non-extension to the types of murder. But the issue of deprivation of the heir who was an accomplice in the murder, in the case of the silence of the law and many jurisprudential texts, is the place for stopping to give an opinion. In addition, it needs to be investigated whether the deputy in murder can receive a pension from the pension funds as the survivor of the victim or not. On the one hand, the exceptional character of the impediment to inheritance and the need not extend it to indefinite titles and on the other hand, the reasonableness of following the wisdom of the ruling on the deprivation of the killer and its extension has made it difficult to provide a conclusive opinion. However, there are reasons and documents in which we can state carefully that the issue of deprivation of inheritance and receiving a pension is also probable in this case, and the grounds for this conclusion are more solid. Thus, this paper aims to analyze the issue and provide a solution based on an analytical-critical approach.