ارزيابي انتقادي ادله فقهي «بدل حيلوله

A Critical Evaluation of the Jurisprudential Evidences of Intervening Substitute (Badal Ḥeilūla)

در فقه اسلامي، ضامن موظف به ردّ عين به مالك است. اما در صورت تعذر، بايد بدل آن را تا زمان ردّ عين، بدهد كه از آن به «بدل حيلوله» ياد مي­شود. هرچند مشهور فقهاي اماميه و نيز برخي از فقيهان اهل­سنت به بدل حيلوله حكم داده­اند، اما اختلاف در ادله­ي مشروعيت و چالش­هاي مهم اجراي آن همانند افزوده شدن دعاوي جديد به پرونده مانند ادعاي ضامن نسبت به تصرفات مغصوب منه در بدل و طولاني­شدن پرونده­هاي قضايي، بازخواني ادله­ي اين حكم را ضروري مي­نمايد. بررسي ادله نشان مي­دهد كه ادله­ي لفظي مورد استناد، ارتباط مستقيمي با موضوع ندارند، بلكه به لزوم جبران خسارت دلالت دارند. ادله­ي لبي مطرح شده نيز، فراتر از حكم ارشادي نيستند. در نتيجه دست­كم در مواردي كه ضمان به دليل تصرف غيرعدواني است، براي جبران زيان­هاي مالك، به جاي «بدل حيلوله» مي­توان به شيوه­هاي عقلايي ديگر مانند پرداخت اجرة المثل منافع عين مغصوبه به مالك نيز رجوع نمود كه چالش­ها و دشواري­هاي كمتري دارند.

In Islamic jurisprudence, in addition to the prohibition of appropriation of others’ properties by the guarantor, it is obligatory for him to return the usurped property to its owner - whether he is a usurper or not. But, if returning the usurped property is not possible, the usurper is obliged to give back its substitute to the owner until the usurped property becomes possible to return. This injunction which is known as the intervening substitute (badal ḥeilūla) is approved by Imāmiyya jurists and consequently the Civil Code and some Sunni jurists. Disputes regarding the legitimacy of the intervening substitute and challenges resulting from implementing this injunction, like inclusion of new claims to cases like the claim of the guarantor regarding the appropriations of the one whose property is usurped from the substitute, and consequently lengthening the proceedings and their implementation make the reappraisal of the jurisprudential evidences of this injunction necessary. Investigating these evidences reveals that, firstly, the verbal evidences of this injunction do not have direct relationship to the issue and secondly refer to, at most the necessity of compensating for losses and not how to do so. Nonverbal evidences in proving this injunction, even if we accept them, refer to advisory (irshādī) injunctions not binding (mawlawī) ones. As a result, at least in cases resulting from non-forcible appropriation in order to compensate for the losses of the owner until the real property is returned, in addition to the intervening substitute, other reasonable methods like paying the equivalent remuneration (ujrat al-mithl) of the usurped property to the owner can be utilized which have less challenges and difficulties.