A Comparative Study of the Principles of Conventional Cause Theory in Imami Jurisprudence

Legal causation in the Western context provides a systematic manifestation of an intellectual apparatus. A system that is not sufficient in terms of content, despite conforming to the formal boundaries of modern knowledge and determining the appropriate place to discuss similar concepts. On the other hand, a similar current of thought among Imami jurists has carefully developed many of these concepts, including causality, which, of course, without the form and framework of modern knowledge, seems very irregular. The combination of these two approaches, which meet in the foundations of the conventional cause view, promotes the form and content: In sum, the human cause with other natural causes of a phenomenon, if the result occurs directly from the behavior of the human agent, there is no doubt to attribute the result to him. In indirect damages, mental elements help the jurist to measure the ratio of harmful consequences to the perpetrator's behavior and other natural factors in a reasoned, justifiable and explainable system. Predicting loss When it is probable and also when it is actually predicted by the perpetrator, the knowledge of the perpetrator of the loss, although typically unpredictable, and the intent of the perpetrator to cause the loss as it occurred; Although he has only looked at his own fortune and has acted in its direction, however small; The basic elements of attributing the results to the behavior of the agent are in the causal chain, which is extracted from the perspective of the conventional cause and similar principles in Imami jurisprudence.