Paper Information

Journal:   JOURNAL OF ISLAMIC JURISPRUDENCE AND LAW   fall 2017-winter 2018 , Volume 10 , Number 20 #l00548; Page(s) 43 To 67.
 
Paper: 

The Conceptual Scope of the Rule of Hardship in Islamic Jurisprudential Sections and its Relation with Similar Words

 
 
Author(s):  SHAHINFARD KHATEREH, NAZARI TAVAKKOLI SAEID*, OMANI SAMANI REZA, ABEDINI AHMAD
 
* Law Department, Najafabad Azad University, Najafabad, Iran / Department of Law and Islamic Law, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran
 
Abstract: 
One of the most important juridical rules derived from a Quranic verse is the principle of no hardship which is applied in different jurisprudential topics from purity to blood money. Although this principle is presented by jurists alongside other principles such as the “ principle of no harm” and permissibility of forbidden acts in urgent and emergency situations in inferring legal commandments, the question that needs to be examined is that with respect to the similarity of jurisprudential applications of this rule, what is the fundamental difference between this rule and other similar rules? In this research, we aim to show the similarity and differences between the word “ Haraj” and the terms “ necessity, disadvantage and urgency” in the conceptual analysis of the applications of Hraj in jurisprudential texts and to examine whether one of them can be considered as the original for other words, or if such an opportunity does not exist, one should still consider each one as separate from the other. The findings of this research show that despite the wide variation in the application of the rule of law in jurisprudential texts, “ Haraj” has a broader concept than the notion of harm, necessity and urgency and this jurisprudential rules: necessity, urgency and harm will be branches of the rule negation of hardship and Haraj.
 
Keyword(s): Haraj,Negation of Haraj Rule,emergency situations,Harm,necessity,hardship
 
References: 
  • ندارد
 
  Persian Abstract Yearly Visit 27
 
Latest on Blog
Enter SID Blog