Authentic ḥadīths that liken the sanctity of property to the sanctity of life—found in both Imāmī and Sunni sources—affirm the equal inviolability of human life and wealth. Jurists generally agree that these reports establish the obligatory prohibition (taḥrīm taklīfī) of any unauthorized interference with others’ property. The central question, however, concerns whether a declarative ruling (ḥukm waḍʿī)—specifically, the rule of liability (ḍamān)—can also be inferred from these texts. The dominant view maintains that the term ḥurmat (sanctity) denotes primarily a normative prohibition, not a legal liability, based on arguments such as the contextual consistency (waḥdat al-siyāq) of the ḥadīth, the restrictive role of ownership (ḥaythiyyat taqyīdiyyah), and the absence of necessary implication (dalālat iltizāmīyah). In contrast, the alternative view upholds that these narrations do, in fact, entail ḍamān in cases of unlawful property damage or loss. Using a descriptive–analytical and ijtihādī methodology, this study examines the authenticity, jurisprudential interpretation (fiqh al-ḥadīth), and semantic scope of these reports. By analyzing the graded nature of sanctity and respect (iḥtirām wa ḥurmat), the generality of the analogy between life and property, the distinction between property as wealth (māliyyah) and ownership (mālikiyyah), and the rational convention (‘urf ‘uqalāʾī) of compensating destroyed property, the research concludes in favor of the second view: that the narrations support the inference of liability (ḍamān) alongside moral prohibition.
Hakim M. Assessing the Possibility of Inferring Liability (Ḍamān) from the Ḥadīths Comparing the Sanctity of Property and Life. 3 2025; 19 (37) :103-131 URL: http://pnmag.ir/article-1-2203-en.html