واﮐﺎوي ﺗﻐﯿﯿﺮ ﺷﺎﺧﺺ ﻗﯿﻤﺖ ﺳﺎﻻﻧﻪ از ﻣﻨﻈﺮ ﻓﻘﻪ اﻣﺎﻣﯿﻪ

The study of "annual price index change" from the perspective of Imami jurisprudence

ماده ي 522 ﻗﺎﻧﻮن آﯾﯿﻦ دادرﺳﯽ ﻣﺪﻧﯽ، ﻣﻼك ﭘﺮداﺧﺖ دﯾﻮن را ﺗﻐﯿﯿﺮ ﺷﺎﺧﺺ ﻗﯿﻤﺖ ﺳﺎﻻﻧﻪ ﻣﯽداﻧﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺑﺎﻧﮏ ﻣﺮﮐﺰي ﺟﻤﻬﻮري اﺳﻼﻣﯽ اﯾﺮان ﺗﻌﯿﯿﻦ ﻣﯽﮐﻨﺪ اﯾﻦ ﻣﻼك، ﮐﻠﯽ اﺳﺖ و از اﯾﻦ رو، اﻓﺰاﯾﺶ ارزش ﭘﻮل را ﻧﯿﺰ در ﺑﺮﻣﯽﮔﯿﺮد. ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻟﺰوم رﻋﺎﯾﺖ ﺣﻖ واﻗﻌﯽ ﻫﺮ ﯾﮏ از داﯾﻦ و ﻣﺪﯾﻦ، اﯾﻦ ﭘﺮﺳﺶ، ﭘﯿﺶ روي ﻗﺮار ﻣﯽﮔﯿﺮد ﮐﻪ از ﻣﻨﻈﺮ ﻓﻘﻪ اﻣﺎﻣﯿﻪ، ﻣﺪﯾﻦ، در ﻓﺮض اﻓﺰاﯾﺶ ارزش ﭘﻮل، ﺑﻪ ﭘﺮداﺧﺖ ﭼﻪ ﻣﺒﻠﻐﯽ ﻣﺘﻌﻬﺪ اﺳﺖ؟ ﻧﻮﺷﺘﺎر ﺣﺎﺿﺮ، ﺑﻪ اﺳﺘﻨﺎد ﻣﺒﺎﻧﯽ و ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ ﻓﻘﻪ اﻣﺎﻣﯿﻪ و ﺑﺮرﺳﯽ آراء ﻓﻘﻬﯽ ﻓﻘﯿﻬﺎن ﺷﯿﻌﻪ، ﺑﺮ اﺛﺒﺎت اﯾﻦ ﻓﺮﺿﯿﻪ، اﻫﺘﻤﺎم دارد ﮐﻪ در ﻓﺮض اﻓﺰاﯾﺶ ارزش ﭘﻮل، ﻗﺪرت ﺧﺮﯾﺪ ﭘﻮل در دﯾﻦ، ﻣﻌﯿﺎر اداي ﺣﻖ اﺳﺖ؛ ﭼﻪ اﯾﻨﮑﻪ اﮔﺮ ﺑﻪ ﻫﻨﮕﺎم ﺳﺮ رﺳﯿﺪ ﺗﻌﻬﺪ، ارزش ﭘﻮل، اﻓﺰاﯾﺶ ﺷﺪﯾﺪ ﯾﺎﺑﺪ و ﺗﻐﯿﯿﺮ ﺷﺎﺧﺺ ﺳﺎﻻﻧﻪ، ﺑﺮاي ﭘﺮداﺧﺖ دﯾﻦ، ﻟﺤﺎظ ﮔﺮدد، در ﺻﻮرت ﻋﺪم ﺗﻤﮑﻦ، ﻣﺪﯾﻦ، ﻣﺘﺤﻤﻞ ﺿﺮر اﺳﺖ و در ﺻﻮرت ﺗﻤﮑﻦ ﻣﺎﻟﯽ ﻣﺪﯾﻦ و اﺳﺘﻨﮑﺎف وي از ﭘﺮداﺧﺖ، داﯾﻦ، ﻣﺘﺤﻤﻞ ﺿﺮر اﺳﺖ و ﻫﺮ دو ﺻﻮرت، ﺑﺎ ﭘﺮداﺧﺖ ﻋﺎدﻻﻧﻪي ﻣﻮرد ﻧﻈﺮ ﻓﻘﻪ، ﻣﻨﺎﻓﺎت دارد

Article 522 of the "Civil Procedure Law" considers the debt payment criterion to be "annual price index change". The Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran determines that this criterion is general and therefore includes "increasing the value of money". Considering the necessity of respecting the real rights of each party, this problem arises that from the perspective of Imamiyyah jurisprudence, what amount is the debtor obligated to pay in the assumption of an increase in the value of money? The present article, based on the foundations and sources of Imami jurisprudence and examining the jurisprudential opinions of Shia jurists, tries to prove this hypothesis that in the assumption of an increase in the value of money, the purchasing power of money in religion is a criterion for fulfilling the right. What if the obligation reaches its end, the value of money increases sharply and the change of the annual index is taken into account to pay the debt. In case of inability, the debtor bears the loss, and in the case of the debtor's financial ability and his refusal to pay, the creditor bears the loss, and both cases are in severe conflict with the fair payment intended by jurisprudence.