A comparative study of the powers of the ruling province in jurisprudence and civil rights

The question of the authority of a ruler and their province is a topic worth considering in both Umayyad jurisprudence and Iranian civil rights. This discussion typically occurs in situations where other provinces are not involved, such as when someone doesn't have a father or grandfather. In these cases, the ruling province takes on a compensatory role for the loss of a special governor and can exercise the powers that come with being in this position. However, there are differences between the examples of rulers in jurisprudence and civil law. In jurisprudence, a ruler often refers to a jurist, while in civil law it typically refers to the prosecutor and judiciary. Although there is little disagreement in determining who qualifies as a ruler in Iranian jurisprudence and civil rights, there is more debate about the scope and limitations of a ruler's options in different aspects of these legal systems. Given the uncertainties and diverse inquiries surrounding the authority of ruling provinces in jurisprudence and civil rights, particularly concerning the extent of their power and limitations, the current study employs a descriptive analytical approach to explore this subject in significant areas of Iranian jurisprudence and civil law. Specifically, the study looks into topics such as sale, marriage, wills, and mortgages.