چکیده:
This article is organized into four sections. In the first section, the author addresses the position of temporary ownership within legal knowledge. After presenting a report on the views of Iranian and Arab legal scholars, the author concludes that temporality in ownership is not possible based on the attributes proposed for ownership in legal sciences. The second section deals with collecting cases of temporary ownership in jurisprudence, and ultimately, it is concluded that jurists do not have a unified view on these matters. The third section pertains to the reasons for denying temporary ownership. After presenting eight reasons in this regard and critiquing and analyzing them, the author concludes that none of these reasons can deny the legitimacy of temporary ownership from a jurisprudential perspective. In the final section, where the reasons for the possibility and occurrence of temporary ownership are stated, arguments are made regarding the validity of the concept of ownership and the occurrence of numerous instances of it in jurisprudence, and finally, it is concluded that from a jurisprudential standpoint, there is no prohibition against the realization of temporary ownership.
خلاصه ماشینی:
"42 Some, such as the author of "al-Hada'iq," have thought that this statement of the Shahid indicates his opposition or doubt regarding the condition of permanence and confirmation in Waqf,52 whereas Al-Shahid al-Thani as well as Allamah al-Hilli consider cases where the Waqf is explicitly restricted by time -------------- al-Wahhab bi-Sharh Manhaj al-Tullab, vol.
An important point that is significant at the end of this issue is that most jurists, although they consider Waqf to be the transfer of ownership of the essence of the endowed property to the beneficiary, it seems that none of them have relied on the impossibility of temporary ownership and temporary transfer of ownership when arguing for the requirement of permanence and perpetuity in Waqf.
In response to those who consider the condition of perpetuity to be a matter of dispute in the aforementioned sub-section and, based on this, consider the argument for the invalidity of this sub-section due to the lack of the condition of perpetuity to be misplaced, he says: One could say: Waqf requires the transfer of ownership from the endower, and otherwise, it would be حبس (detention), so this ownership does not return except by a legal cause; therefore, Waqf, as long as no new cause has arisen, requires perpetuity and83 As can be observed, Muhaqqiq Karaki has not placed the reason for the requirement of perpetuity and permanence in the implication of the word or the reality of Waqf, but rather places the cause in the transfer (53).
(
, 
, 
)
