بررسي مباني فقهي قابليّت مطالبه‌ي خسارت تاخير تاديه

Investigation of Juristic Essentials of Lawfulness of Demand of Late Payment Damages from Islamic Sects’ Perspectives

در اين تحقيق، مباني فقهي قابليّت مطالبه‌ي خسارت تاخير تاديه از باب ضمانات قهري، قواعد‌عمومي معاملات، قواعد فقهي و ادلّه‌ي اصولي مورد بحث و بررسي قرار گرفته است. بر اساس اين مباني مي‌توان گفت كه پول صرفاً مالي مثلي نيست تا قواعد و آثار اموال مثلي در خصوص آن اجرا شود، بلكه مي توان با قياس پول بر كالاهاي تجاري، قياس مماطله بر غصب، اتلاف مال غير و فراهم كردن سبب ورود ضرر به ديگري، قواعد فقهي لاضرر، نفي حرج، منع اكل اموال به باطل و ... اصول مسلّم شريعت از قبيل عدالت، نفي غرر و جهالت در قراردادها، وفاي به عهد و ادلّه اي مانند: حكم عرف، استسحان، مقاصد شريعت و مصالح مرسله و اين واقعيّت كه ماهيّت پول‌هاي اعتباري چيزي جز قدرت خريد نيست، به جبران خسارت تاخير تاديه ناشي از كاهش ارزش پول- حتّي فراتر از شرايط مقرّر در مادّه‌ي522 قانون آيين دادرسي مدني- حكم داد. وجود چنين حكمي در شرع، ضروري به نظر مي رسد، چرا كه عصر جديد، اقتضايات خود را دارد و محدود كردن احكام شرعي به ظاهر نصوص و اقوال مجتهدان صاحب مذهب موجب مي‌شود كه مخالفان شريعت، زبان به طعنه گشوده و نظام كامل و متقن حقوق اسلامي را به ناكارآمدي، كهنه پرستي متّهم كنند.

Based on automatic liabilities, general rules of transactions, juristic rules, and rules of principle of jurisprudence, the present research discusses and surveys lawfulness of demand of late payment damages. According to such essentials, one can assert that money is not merely a fungible property to be treated only on the basis of rules and effects of fungible properties; rather, one can make judgment that late payment damages caused by depreciation of monetary value should be indemnified even beyond conditions mentioned in the article no. 522 of principles of civil litigation due to analogies made between money and merchandise as well as procrastination and usurpation, destructing others’ properties, preparing grounds for damaging others, juristic rules of “there is no damage in Islam,” negation of hardship, prohibition of consumption of others’ properties in vanity, etc. on the one hand and such definite religious principles as justice, negation of ignorance in contracts, fulfillment of promises as well as judgment of the custom, public interest, and this fact that nature of credit monies is nothing but purchasing power. Making such religious judgment seems necessary, for the modern era has its own necessities and limiting religious precepts to appearance of religious proofs as well as jurists’ verdicts would allow opponents to blame the perfect, thorough Islamic law as being insufficient and fanaticism