Alienation of a Property in Shiite Jurisprudence and Positive Law of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of alienation is a condition for consideration that has many interpretations and in jurisprudence, especially Shiite jurisprudence. Civil law has no reference to alienation of property a condition for consideration or or dealers. By commenting on legal provisions, some few jurists have noted “non-belonging to a third party” as a general condition for the accuracy of transactions. The impact of alienation in the correctness of contracts and other financial possessions belongs to certain object or an indirect possession as well as the absence of clear legal carrier to verify this requirement has signified the importance of explaining the provisions, the position, and the procedure of the subject’s involvement in the correctness of financial seizure. From the perspective of jurisprudence, lack of reasons preventing possession by others for the correctness of a transaction results in the fact that the necessary alienation in each instances of this discussion requires a particular reason; in the absence of such reason, the owner’s seizure becomes effective. This article tries to explain ownership, the process of transfer, and its extinction at first; then, it reviews alienation (literally and legally), its history, the conditions for alienation in Shiite jurisprudence in Iranian positive laws.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".