1. General Rules of Jurisprudence Lesson 34
قاعدة الأقرار
The rule of IQRAAR -Part two
Confession or acknowledgment
Source of the 2nd rule
The exceptional cases
The confession indicated by associated things (implicit or indirect)
Dissociation of one acknowledgment
The restriction of acknowledgment on the practical control (SALTANAH)

2. The HADEETH: SAHEEHA of MOSA’DA
The SAHEEHAH of MAS’ADAH son of ZIYAAD, who narrates from JAFER son of MOHAMMAD (AS), who narrates from his father (BAQIR AS): Verily the messenger of Allah (S) said: “you cannot accuse the one you have entrusted him….”
”ليس لك أن تتهم من قد أئتمنته“
This HADEETH is good indication for the case of accepting the information of the representative, but not in his direct behavior with his belonging or the belonging rights such as informing about his divorce.
So the HADEETH is correct but the indication is incomplete.

3. Source of the 2nd rule: SALTANAH
The rule of SALTANAH or control (taken previously) by it self is an indication that if a person has the right to do with his belongings what ever he wants (as long as it is legal and permitted) then why shouldn’t he have the right to inform about his behavior regarding hi belonging, or say why should he not his word or his information regarding such behavior to his belonging be accepted.
This is accepted but not as a logical relation between the behavior and the information about his behavior, but because the lifestyle of the intellectuals observes and practices such relation, and such practice is acknowledged by the infallibles (AS).
But the SEERAH of the OQALA does not indicates this rule as MOJABAH KOLIYAH (entirely positive statement) only in some parts.

4. Problems with the SEERAH of OQALA
It was claimed that the lifestyle of the intellectuals is one of the strong indications, but there are few problems:
The acceptance of the word of the representative who has the control on the belonging of the owner, on behalf of the owner, is based on the trustworthiness of the agent or the representative, other wise he would not have given him the power of representation, so his world is taken based on the narration of trusted is proof (KHABAR ATHIQAH HUJJAT), and not based on this rule.
Or the acceptance of the word of the representative and not accusing him of lying is based on the indication of the SAHEEH narration of MAS’ADAH .
Acceptance of the divorce or sale could be because he is trusted or because of the rule of confession or confessing against him self.
Conclusion: The SEERAH can only prove some areas where other rules are not implemented, so it does not prove the generality of this rule.

5. The exceptional cases
If there was any indication of a conspiracy behind the acknowledgment or confession, then it should not be taken into consideration, such as his confession was in his interest and in his benefit.
Example: He confessed that he has committed burglary or robbery, so that if they cut of his hand he will be excused from joining the military. Because the intellectuals do not accept such confessions.
The confession of the adultery, it cannot be taken once, it has to be done four times, based on the specific narrations defining this rule.

6. The confession indicated by associated things (implicit or indirect)
If the confession was explicit, then there is no doubt that it is taken seriously, but what if the confession was implicit or indirect or was indicated by another associated thing?
The house which I am living in is the one I bought from ZAID, so this statement indicates that it was for ZAID, but the claim is that it has been transferred into the property of the confessing person. This confession will be taken seriously and the house will be considered ZAID’s and the confessor will require to present an evidence to prove that the house has been transferred to him by sale.
The evidence is the lifestyle of the intellectuals does not differ between the various types of confessions.

7. Dissociation of one acknowledgment
When ever a person confesses, then the things or commitments related to his confession will be in two types:
For example if he says that this woman is my wife, then:
Things commitments for him: The marital benefits, inheriting his wife, and preventing her from marry another person. all these cannot be proven for him based on his confession, because these are interests, and interests are not proven by the rule confession.
Things commitments against him: Financial support, food, shelter, preventing him from getting married to her blood relatives, and if she was the fourth then he cannot get the fifth. These are the commitments which are proven by this rule only, because these are against his interests and benefits.
Yes it could be said that since there is no bed rights, then no financial support is obligated.

8. More examples:
If a person says that this is my son and the son says I am not your son, then the son will inherit that person’s wealth , but the father will not inherit the sons wealth.
The father will be responsible to spend on his son and the son will have no rights towards this man.

9. The restriction of acknowledgment on the practical control (SALTANAH)
If hypothetically we approve the second rule of behavior, and we accept that the lifestyle of the intellectual supports it, then it must be specified in one case only where there is an active control or SALTANAH FE’LIYAH, so if there is no active control on a thing or a right then this rule cannot be implemented.
If a husband after divorcing his wife, he claims after the waiting period (EDDAH) had ended, that I have returned her before the end of the waiting period. His word will not be accepted because he does not have any active control now in returning her.
After the representative was demoted from his representation or the representation ended, he informed that I sold the house on behalf of the owner to such person, his word will not be accepted now because he does not have any active control now in trading on behalf of the owner. (not active control)