بازخواني فقهي ـ حقوقي شركت‌هاي اعمال، مفاوضه و وجوه

The Islamic Jurisprudential and Legal Examination of the Companies of Labour (Bodies or Abdan), Negotiation (Mufawadha) and Reputations (Wujooh)

مشهور فقهاي اماميه، شركت‌هاي اعمال، مفاوضه و وجوه را باطل مي‌شمارند و براي اثبات آن به ادله‌اي نظير اجماع، تمليك معدوم، عدم دليل بر صحت و غرري بودن اين معاملات استناد مي‌كنند، بي‌آنكه دليلي از آيات و روايات و يا حكم عقل قطعي به دست دهند. فقهاي اماميه معتقدند كه براي صحت اين معاملات بايد متوسل به عقد صلح يا وكالت و يا راهكارهاي ديگر شد. قانون‌گذار نيز در مواد قانون مدني اشاره‌اي به اين شركت‌ها و احكام آن ندارد. در اين جستار با واكاوي ادله قول مشهور، اين نتيجه به دست مي‌آيد كه مستندات اينان وافي به مقصود نيست و براي اثبات مدعاي ايشان كافي نمي‌نمايد. بايد گفت كه اين قراردادها جز اعمال حقوقيِ متداول ميان اجتماع است و دليل قطعي بر بطلان آن‌ها وجود ندارد. فقيهان به دليل رواج اين معاملات در عرف، ناچار به چاره‌جويي براي صحت آن شده‌اند. نظريه صحتِ اين قراردادها هرچند مخالف قول مشهور فقيهان امامي است، برخي معاصران طرفدار آن هستند. از ديدگاه حقوق مدني نيز با وجود ماده 10 قانون مدني كه بيانگر اصل آزادي اشخاص در انعقاد قراردادهاست، مي‌توان نظريه صحت اين معاملات را تقويت نمود.

The well-known Im?m? Sh?’a jurists (Fuqaha) believe the voidance of the companies of Labour (Bodies or Abdan), Negotiation (Mufawadha) and Reputations (Wujooh). There are no absolute proofs or evidences to prove the voidance of these partnerships in the Holy Quran, Islamic traditions and intellectual judgment but only proofs such as ijmae (consensus), the possession of the nonexistent, the absence of proofs for validity and risky (gharar) of such transactions (Mu??mal?t) has been cited. The Im?m? Sh?’a jurists (Fuqaha) believe that the validity of these transactions (Mu??mal?t) are proved by Sulh (peace) and Wakalah (Agency) contracts or other mechanism (solutions). The legislature has not mentioned these partnerships and legal authorities (decrees). With analyzing the evidences of the well-known Im?m? Sh?’a jurists (Fuqaha) sayings and after evaluating its criterion, the author has reached to this result that the clarified proofs are not sufficient to prove their claim. But these contracts have been and are of the accepted and conventional legal acts among people and there is no certain reason for the voidance (annulment) of these companies and because of its generality (currency) of these transactions among individuals, the Im?m? Sh?’a jurists (Fuqaha) should inevitably seek a consideration (deliberation) for the validity of these contracts. Although the attitude of the validity of these contracts is contrary to the saying of the well-known Im?m? Sh?’a jurists (Fuqaha), but some of the contemporary Im?m? Sh?’a jurists (Fuqaha) are proponents of this saying. From the view of the civil code of Iran, article 10 which determines the principle of freedom of contract or Liberty of Contract can strengthen or encourage the attitude of validity of such transactions. Keywords: The company of labour (bodies or abdan), The company reputations (wujooh), The company of negotiation (mufawadha), Risky (gharar), Ijmae (consensus), The possession of the nonexistent.