Shart

Shart names something required for an act to count, standing outside the act itself rather than forming one of its essential parts.

What it means for me: Shart tells you what has to be true before or during an act for it to count. Missing one does not mean a part is missing from the act itself, only that a requirement was not met.

Example: A scholar says, 'reaching a set age is a shart for this duty, not a rukn of it.' The listener understands: without it, the duty is not yet binding, though the act itself would have no missing part.

Do not confuse with: Rukn, pillar. A missing rukn means part of the act itself is gone. A missing shart means the act cannot yet take effect, even though its parts are complete.

If scholars differ: Legal theorists commonly divide conditions into three kinds: of obligation, of validity, and of completeness. Jurists can differ on whether a specific requirement is a shart, a rukn, or merely recommended. This distinction is discussed further in know the ruling before you sign.