عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]چکیده [English]
Religious rules, whether charging or positive, belong to the acts of those liable to religious duties. Some of these rules require capacity of those liable to religious duties over their acts. Such a capacity is" right" in its jurisprudential sense on whose definition there is no unanimity and can be a matter of fact for certain rules. Permissibility of relinquishment and transfer through inheritance is one of the effects of such a consideration. In contrast, there is the term "rule" meaning those religious regulations from which you can not derive capacity over acts. As a result those three effects are lacking in the rules. Some of these rules are termed as " right" in jurisprudential books indicating its literal meaning i.e. affirmation. However, in their deep analysis they are rules due to their lack of the three features. It is worth noting that all the rights are not the same level concerning these features. In some cases there is doubt concerning distinguishing between right and rule. In some other cases there is no doubt that something is a right but there is doubt in possessing some of those features. These situations require a precise criterion towards distinguishing the right from the rule and recognizing the effects of right.
The present article is an attempt towards knowing the differences between these two divine legislations through various views of jurisprudents.