Abstract:
The main task in this article is to answer the basic question of whether a sick person can completely interfere in his property or not. In order to prove his opinion, the author pursues the discussion in three axes and by raising three sub-questions: 1) What issues are inside the place of dispute and what issues are outside of it? 2) What is the concept of sick? 3) Are the patient's components taken from the principal or a third of it? After presenting these points, he concludes by using hadiths and narrations that the patient has the right to take possession of all his property and possessions at the time of death.
Machine summary:Now, if a sick person gives a gift, makes a love transaction or frees something from his property, removes a liability (whether the liability is related to property or to the right) and these possessions do not depend on his death, but what he has created in time How will the contracts and deals of this person be realized? Does he have the right to withdraw from all his property or can he only take a third of it? In response to this question, there are two opinions: According to the first opinion, he can take from the principle of MatrakAnd according to another word, from a third of it. Another thing is that from what we have said as a rule for the place of dispute, it means that someone has existing wealth or existing wealth (such as the benefits of existing property that are obtained in successive times), regardless of whether it is the same and what benefit or demand he has from someone or the right. If, in the world of credit and legislation, he transfers that property or right to another without exchange or less exchange, or releases the liability of someone who has a right to him, or forgives a financial right, in all These cases have been disputed as to whether they are removed from the original matrak or from a third of it like a will.