شرايط قلمرو و آثار فقهي و حقوقي رياست زوج در رابطه با زوجه

Husband Mastery over Wife, Legal Effects as per the Islamic Jurisprudence, Conditions and Limits

با آنكه حاكميت از آن خداوند متعال مي باشد و اصل، عدم سلطه ي انساني بر انسان د يگر است، اما بهموجب آ يه ي 34 سوره نسا و ماده ي 1105 قانون مدن ي در رابطه ي زوجيت، رياست از آن شوهر مي باشد؛ اما اين امتياز به معناي سلطه و حكمراني بي حد و مرز شوهر بر مقصود از تعبير (الرجال قو?امون » : همسر خود نيست، همانگونه كه بسياري از فقها بيان داشتهاند علي النسا ) استبداد، اجحاف و تعدي نيست، بلكه منظور رهبر ي واحد و منظم با توجه به ضمن آنكه براساس اصول او ليه ي اخلاق ي و قواعد .« مسيوليتها و مشورتهاي لازم است مسلم فقهي (قاعده ي لاضرر ) مي توان گفت، ر ياست و قواميت مرد در وهله ي اول ي ك مسيوليت و وظيفه تلقي شده و در مرحله ي بعد به صورت يك موقعيت برتر و داراي امكانات و اختيارات ويژه به منظور فعليت بخشيدن به وظا يف ناش ي از اين مسيو ليت، مورد توجه قرار مي گيرد و رياست شوهر ه يچگ اه مايه ي كمال و فض يلت مرد و دستاو يز اجحاف بر زن و كاستي ارزش و كرامت انساني او نيست و مرد براي عهده دار شدن اين مسيوليت بايستي شرايط و اوصافي داشته باشد.

According to Holy Quran sovereignty is for God (Verse 40, Yousef Surah) and in principle no human enjoys dominance over the other. Nonetheless, according to Verse 34-Alnesa Surah of Quran and similarly Article 1105 of Iran’s Civil Law, directorship is for the husband in domestic relations. However, this does not purport to unconditional predominance of husband over his wife and according to many Islamic jurists, the implication of the Quran reading “Husband shall superintend the wife” may not be translated as menʹs despotism, cruel it your injustice. Instead, the purpose is prescription of a unified regulated leadership with respect to [household] responsibilities and subject to consultation [with wife]» (Shirazi, Makaremand others, 2006, vol. 4, 471). Furthermore, under moral principles and as per the concrete rules of Islamic jurisprudence namely the rule of “Prohibition of Harm” stipulated in principle 40 of Iran’s constitution, “No individual may excersise his/her rights as a mean of damaging others”, all of which imply that directorship and superintendence of a husband accounts primarily and in essence as a “duty” and not merely a sole priviledge. It is only then we may consider such privilege for the husband to enjoy authorities required to carry out duties arising out of his position. Directorship of husband does not account for devaluation of wive’s human dignity or husbandʹs primacy or superiority over his wife. For taking up such position husband shall need to have competence based on which he finds a restricted capacity to perform meaning that his authorities are bound to limits.