General Rules of Jurisprudence
Lesson 32
The rule of deception or
fraud (GHOROOR) ‫الغرور‬
•The rule
•The source
•The ignorance is required in
implementation
•The rule of causation
(TASBEEB)‫التسبيب‬
The rule: fraud (GHOROOR) ‫الغرور‬
• GHOROOR is from deceiving and deception:
GHOROOR means deception and GHARAR
means ignorance, both are different. The
rule indicates that who ever cause damage
or loss to others because of deceiving him,
becomes liable and guarantees the loss of
the one who was deceived. So the deceiver
takes the responsibility of the loss of the
deceived because of the deception.
• This rule is different than the rule of causation
(TASBEEB), such as doctor writes a
prescription by error and the patient gets
damaged because of his prescription, here
there was no GHOROOR or deception, but
the doctor was the cause of the damage of
the patient. So the doctor takes the liability
based on the rule of TASBEEB (causation)
because it was unintentional damage.
EVERY GHOROOR IS TASBEEB
• Every GHOROOR or deception is
TASBEEB (causation) and not
opposite. So not every TASBEEB is
GHOROOR. That is the reason that
these two rules are separated.
• TASBEEB without GHOROOR: The
MASJID becomes najis or impure, the
one who caused it must clean it no
matter how much it costs him.
• TASBEEB and GHOROOR: A person
describing a woman to a man, and
after the marriage he finds out that
he was deceived and cheated. So
here both the cause and the
deception are used.
The source: SEERAH of the OQALA
• The first source is the lifestyle of the
intellectuals: But the life style of the
intellectuals does not prove the liability in all
the cases of GHOROOR, only in few cases,
that means it is not a good evidence to
prove the generality of this rule.
• The SEERAH supports in the case of
deception from the seller, or the one who
offers the stolen food to some one else
without informing him. Or the one who was
the direct cause for the damage and the
loss of the deceived one.
• But in some cases such as the deceiver was
an advisor , and because of his advise the
deceived got the damage or the loss, in this
case the SEERAH does not holds the
deceiver liable.
The General narrations:
• The famous general narration of the
Prophet (S): “ The deceived returns to
the deceiver”
• This Hadeeth is not authentic
hadeeth, there is no SANAD or link
for this HADEETH.
• There is another HADEETH which has
the same issue of SANAD and is
narrated by chief of the believers
(Imam Ali -AS) and is specific for the
case of the dowry, Imam Ali (AS):
“The deceived returns in the dowry
to the deceiver”
The specific narrations:
• 1-The SAHEEHA of ABO BASEER who
narrates from Abo Abdillah (AS)
regarding A woman who took the
testimony of two, that her husband had
died, therefore she got married, and
after that her first husband came back.
He (AS) said: “She deserves the dowry
because the second (husband) one
consumed (had intercourse) her, and
the two witnesses are flogged with the
religious punishment (of cheating), and
because of their fraud they both are
responsible of guaranteeing the dowry
given by the (second) man, after that
she passes her EDDAH (waiting period)
and returns to her first husband”
• The SANAD or the link of the Hadeeth is
SAHEEH correct and strong
2-Narration of REFAA’H son of MOSA:
• Who said: I asked Abo Abillah (AS)
about a woman with leprosy, so he (AS)
said: that the chief of the believers
(Imam Ali –AS-) decreed in a woman
who had leprosy and she was married
by her guardian, that she deserves the
dowry because her (unspeakable) were
consumed, and that dowry is under the
liability of the guardian who got her
married, and the reason of such liability
is that he is the one concealed her
defect.
• In this narration there is a general cause
of the liability at the end of the
HADEETH. So the indication is clear, but
there a problem in the link because of
an unknown person.
3- Narration of Ismaeel son of JABIR:
• Who narrates: I asked ABO ABDILLAH (AS) about a
man who looked at a woman who became
attracted to him, so he asked about her, and it
was said to him, that she is daughter of FOLAAN
(so and so), so he came to her father and asked
him to get his daughter married to him, so he got
him married to a different woman, and after
having a child from her, he got the knowledge
that the woman he got married to was not that
person’s daughter, but she was a maid. He (AS)
said: “The maid must be returned to her owners,
and the child is for his father, and for the one who
got him married , the cost of the son he must give
it to the master of the maid, because he is the one
who deceived the man and tricked him.
• The indication is clear, but there is an issue in the
SANAD or the link.
• But since the first narration (of ABO BASEER) is
authentic, then such gives the satisfaction for the
2nd and the 3rd narrations. (the aim o three
narrations is one)
•
The ignorance is required in implementation
There are four cases which can be pictured
based on the knowledge of the deception with
the deceiver and the deceived:
1. The deceiver knows and the deceived does
not know, this is the assured implementation of
the rule of GHOROOR
2. In both cases of the deceived knows that he is
being deceived then there is no GHOROOR, so
this rule will not be implemented. Whether the
deceiver knows or not.
3. The fourth case is where both of them they did
not know and the deception happened, there
is a debate some said the rule of GHOROOR
will be implemented because it happened,
some said there was no intention of
GHOROOR.
ERAWANI: There will be liability based on other
rules, such as ON THE HAND (ALALYEDD) or the
causation (TASBEEB) or the rule of damage
(ITLAAF), but not based on the rule of
GHOROOR.
The rule of causation (TASBEEB)‫التسبيب‬
• The ancient scholars said that this rule is a general
rule, and indicates the liability on a person who
some how causes a loss or a damage to other
person or his belongings, regardless of what ever
the reason is, and regardless of his intention, and
motives, and knowledge about the cause of
damage or loss or ignorance about it, as long as he
was the cause, then he guarantees the liability. So
if someone make the carpet of someone else
impure regardless of for what ever reasons,
intentions or unintentionally , then he has to pay for
all the loss which may incur to the carpet, the
decline of its value the wages for hiring people to
do so,.. So on.
• ALKHOEI: Rejected this rule and the liability created
by this rule, yes the liability will be confirmed by the
rule of ITLAAF (damage) or the rule of ALAL YEDD or
on the HAND, if the conditions of its
implementations exist.
• ERAWANI: The SEERAH of OQALA supports this rule,
but in only a situation where the damage and loss
was cause by a cause which is not permitted
religiously. (cause without the owners permission)