دانشگاه تهران مطالعات حقوق خصوصی 2588-5618 55 4 2026 01 18 A Critical Reconsideration of the Concepts of “Morā‘ī” and “Mawqūf” بازاندیشی انتقادی در نظریۀ «مراعی» و «موقوف» 549 580 105543 10.22059/jlq.2026.405047.1008044 FA محمدمهدی الشریف دانشیار گروه حقوق دانشکدۀ علوم اداری و اقتصاد دانشگاه اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران. Journal Article 2025 11 17 Introduction Traditionally, unauthorized transactions (fuḍūlī) and the sale of pledged property (bay‘ al-rahn) were regarded as prime examples of “non-effectiveness” (‘adam al-nofūdh) in legal thought. These contracts, lacking full legal efficacy, were considered cases in which the intended legal effects were not realized due to various factors. However, after careful analysis, jurists identified several significant differences between these two types of agreements, particularly in the processes of rejection and ratification. Consequently, alongside the concept of non-effectiveness, another legal status termed “morā‘ī” was proposed to account for these differences. This term was employed to categorize the sale of pledged property as a legal status that was neither fully effective nor entirely ineffective. Over time, this analysis gained broader acceptance among jurists and was extended to other cases. Numerous additional examples, including the contract of sale addressed in Unifying Ruling No. 810, were also classified as morā‘ī. Despite widespread agreement in describing the sale of pledged property as morā‘ī, significant theoretical disagreements persist among scholars regarding the precise nature of this legal status. The majority of jurists, consistent with their interpretation of morā‘ī, have argued that it represents a situation in which all elements necessary for legal effect are present, yet effectiveness is blocked by an external obstacle. In contrast, others have likened morā‘ī to “tentative ownership” with retroactive effects. Another view regards it as a valid contract subject to potential dissolution, while some scholars equate it with a “non-opposable contract” that is not binding on third parties or affected persons. Method This research adopts a doctrinal and comparative methodology, combining qualitative analysis of legal texts and theoretical frameworks with comparative examination of doctrinal positions and judicial precedents. By integrating doctrinal analysis with historical-legal case studies, this approach provides a more nuanced understanding of how Imāmī jurists have conceptualized the nature of morā‘ī and related doctrines in Islamic legal thought. The combination of qualitative and historical perspectives clarifies complex issues and offers a comprehensive examination of distinctions among various legal concepts, including unauthorized transactions, the sale of pledged property, and other categories related to non-effectiveness. Conclusions Notably, most of these legal scholars have heavily relied on Imāmī jurisprudence and interpretations by Imāmī jurists in developing their views on morā‘ī. However, a deeper examination of Imāmī jurisprudence reveals that the morā‘ī contract, as understood by these jurists, does not precisely match any of the aforementioned descriptions. Contrary to these scholars’ views, the sale of pledged property—along with most similar examples—more appropriately falls within the doctrinal categories of “non-effective” (ghayr nāfidh) or “suspended” (mawqūf). These categories indicate that such agreements lack full legal effectiveness not due to internal deficiency, but owing to external obstacles or pending events that prevent their final enforcement. In its most precise legal sense, morā‘ī refers to a situation in which a subsequent event, at the level of ontological causation, has no influence on the causal chain of the prior event; rather, it merely serves to reveal the prior causal effect. This fundamentally differs from contracts classified as mawqūf or non-effective, where the subsequent event constitutes a vital component of the complete causal chain and thus plays a causal role in producing legal consequences. Whether this causal operation is described as declaratory (kāshif) or transferring (nāqil), the subsequent event remains central to the cause and its legal ramifications. Therefore, from a jurisprudential perspective, only pure declaratory effect—which pertains to the evidentiary realm and the removal of doubt—qualifies as morā‘ī. In all other instances where the subsequent event is an integral part of the complete cause, the situation logically falls under mawqūf, even if one holds that the final component of the cause is merely declaratory. Consequently, acknowledging that the issue in the sale of pledged property and similar cases arises from the presence of an obstacle creates a fundamental contradiction with classifying these transactions as morā‘ī. The reason lies in the fact that the absence of an obstacle constitutes one of the essential components of the complete cause, undeniably influencing the causal effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the prior event. The distinction between unauthorized transactions and the sale of pledged property can therefore be traced to differences in the cause of non-effectiveness or the remaining component of the complete causal chain. In unauthorized transactions, non-effectiveness stems from the absence of requisite capacity (muqtaḍī). In contrast, in the sale of pledged property, it arises from the presence of an obstacle. In cases of suspension due to an obstacle, once the obstacle is removed, the requisite capacity produces its legal effect without requiring ratification. In such cases, only the exercise of the right by the right-holder—not their rejection—leads to the invalidity of the contract. برخی نویسندگان حقوقی برای توجیه تفاوت میان بیع فضولی و بیع رهن در مسئلۀ رد و تنفیذ، وضعیت «مراعی» را در کنار وضعیت «موقوف» شناسایی کرده و آن را وضعیتی دانسته‌اند که علت‌های چهارگانۀ آن تمام است، ولی برای نفوذ آن مانعی وجود دارد. عده‌ای دیگر مراعی را شبیه مالکیت متزلزل با تأثیر قهقرایی و گروهی آن را عقد صحیح در معرض انفساخ و پاره‌ای آن را معادل عقد غیرقابل‌استناد برشمرده‌اند. این تعاریف هیچ‌کدام با تعریف مراعی در فقه امامیه انطباق ندارد. منشأ این سوءتفاهم را باید در عدم تمایز میان مفهوم کاشفیت در مراعی با موقوف جست‌وجو کرد. در فقه برای توجیه تأثیر از آغاز دو نحو کاشفیت مطرح شده است؛ یکی کاشفیت محض که امر متأخر صرفاً علامتی بر سبق اثرگذاری امر مقدم است بدون اینکه در تأثیر نقشی داشته باشد و دیگری کاشفیت امر مؤخر در عین مؤثر بودن. کاشفیت در مراعی از قسم یکم و در موقوف از قسم دوم است. از آنجا که عدم مانع از اجزای علت و اشکال بیع رهن و امثال آن وجود مانع است، تنها وضعیت موقوف بر آن صادق است. بیع رهن نیز مانند فضولی موقوف و با اثر کشفی یا نقلی است و اختلاف احکام آنها ریشه در تفاوت آنها از حیث سبب عدم نفوذ یا جزء باقیماندۀ علت دارد که در یکی فقدان مقتضی و در دیگری وجود مانع است. در موقوف به سبب وجود مانع، با رفع مانع، مقتضی اثر خود را می‌گذارد و به تنفیذ نیاز نیست و تنها اعمال حق از سوی صاحب حق و نه رد وی موجب بطلان عقد می‌شود.

https://jlq.ut.ac.ir/article_105543_3a2d6a00aaf59cc38bdacde59b51817a.pdf