نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسنده
آمر دیپارتمنت حقوق دانشگاه المصطفی - کابل
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]
The “rule of no hardship” is one of the fundamental principles of Islamic jurisprudence that relieves the burden of arduous and unbearable duties from the shoulders of those who are obligated. This research aims to compare the views of the two schools of jurisprudence, the Imamiyyah and the Hanafiyyah, in explaining the theoretical foundations and application of the aforementioned rule, especially in mitigating criminal penalties, including hudud and ta’zirat. The research method is descriptive-analytical and with a contemporary jurisprudence approach, and the data were collected by referring to reliable jurisprudential sources. The results of the research show that both schools consider this rule to be based on the verse “And He has not placed upon you in religion any hardship” and accept it in order to facilitate Islamic rulings. However, Imami jurisprudence, with its Quranic, narrational, rational and principles-based support, has introduced the aforementioned rule in a more systematic and extensive manner in the process of inference and ijtihad; while Hanafi jurisprudence uses this rule more in the form of rules such as “al-mashqa tajlab al-taysir” and has less processed it as an independent principle. Both schools, especially in criminal rulings, consider the use of the rule of laharj in cases of severe hardship for the obligated person to be legitimate and justified. The findings indicate that this rule has the capacity to modify punishments within the framework of Islamic regulations and can play an effective role in responding to the needs of contemporary criminal law.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)