The effects of separating legal matters from thematic matters in Islamic proceedings

Abstract

In Islamic proceedings, more than any other measure, a distinction between judicial and thematic matters can help to facilitate a fair trial. Subjective matters are in the position of expressing an incident and incident, and in contrast, judicial matters consisting of law, legal rule, sources and valid Islamic fatwas and Judicial procedure in the general sense. According to the basic principle provided in the law, it is the duty of the litigants to present the matter and the judge has no right to intervene in this matter. Judicial matters are also within the exclusive duties of the judge and the maximum role of the litigants is to remind the judge and their actions are beyond their authority and power. Resolving the dispute by the judge and issuing a verdict by him, is basically subject to the separation of thematic matters from matters Judgment and order of matters is a matter of subject matter. Failure to separate judicial matters from thematic matters by judges, lawyers and experts on undesirable effects and problems such as delegating judgment to an expert, lack of proper oversight of the Supreme Court over the implementation of the law, issuing rulings outside the requested framework, and inappropriate interference of judges in matters. In this article, while comparatively analyzing thematic and legal matters in Imami jurisprudence and common law, the effects and benefits of separation between them will be stated, and criteria will be provided to distinguish legal matters from thematic ones in order to reduce the aforementioned possible effects using these findings

Keywords

• the fact aspect
• the law aspect
• lawsuits
• formal consideration