A Critique of the Famous Viewpoint of Imamiyah Jurists and Civil Law on the Restrictive Conditions of Conclusion of Rahn

The main function of a rahn (the property made as security for a debt/loan) contract is to reassure the creditor about the receiving his money. According to the view of most of Imamiyah jurists, which is also followed in the civil law, there are two restrictions under the titles of necessity of receiving the receipt of Marhouneh (the loaned property) property and the necessity of the item to be determined for a rahn contract. In some cases, these restrictions seems traditionally unjustifiable and in practice has created problems for economic activists using this institution. The question of the current study is what are the principles of determining these restrictions and how can these principles be criticized and the theory of non- restriction be strengthened?          Through examining the principles of most of Imamiyah jurists view, it is concluded that there are several criticisms of the views on the restriction of the rahn contract. In general, those who believe that the rahn contract should not have these restrictions are right. Therefore, since the views of critics are both jurisprudentially and analytically stronger and can better meet everyday needs, it seems that the legislator can abandon its current approach and reform the civil law in order to eliminate these restrictions.