An introduction into the impediment removal rule (the return of prohibition in case of impediment removal)
Journal Title: فقه و اصول - Year 2015, Vol 47, Issue 101
Abstract
One of the most widely used rules of jurisprudence is ‘impediment removal’ often expressed by the phrase ‘when impediment is removed, the forbidden is regained.’ The application of this rule in jurisprudential matters produces important outcomes since impediment in those matters can prevent the penetration (validity) of the primary ruling, and as a result, the secondary ruling would be issued and actualized. The application of the impediment removal rule in this context would imply that if a mandated or assigned (obligatory) ruling becomes invalid due to the existence of an impediment, after the removal of that impediment the secondary ruling becomes unenforceable and the primary ruling must be enforced again on the responsible agent. Unfortunately, despite its many applications which fall within the provisions of secondary and governmental (state) rules, and in spite of numerous references to it in books of jurisprudence, this rule has not been independently investigated and its limits and conditions or the conditions of its authority have not been dealt with. Therefore, we witness much improper application of the rule in relating literature. Hence, to clarify the various dimensions of the issue, and through the application of a descriptive-analytical method and a data collection from library resources and documentations, first an accurate and comprehensive definition of the term ‘impediment’ is provided. Then, its difference with similar terms including disclaimer (rāfi’), certain (qāti’), and excuse (‘odhr). In addition, the rule has been compared with similar or related principles such as ‘Necessities make prohibitions permissible’, ‘A necessity is considered by its own measure’, ‘What is permissible due to an excuse becomes prohibited after its removal’, and ‘What is removed does not return.’ After an analysis of the argumentations for the rule (e.g. revision of the criterion and removal of specifications, rational reason and rationalist conduct) and with regard to the application and nature of the rule, nine conditions are drawn for its implementation or authority.
Authors and Affiliations
Alireza Abedi Sarasia, Adeleh Rahmani
Keywords
Related Articles
- EP ID EP190131
- DOI 10.22067/fiqh.v47i21.25642
- Views 131
- Downloads 0
A Reconsideration of the Evidences for the Legitimacy of the Death Sentence for Incest
The right to live is a common human right, which is essential to every individual human being due to the inherent dignity of the human person. No one is allowed to take this right from another human being, and the transg...
A Deliberation on Punishment for Pederasty: Legal-Judicial Analysis of Article 110 of Iranian Civil Law
Despite the challenges noticed in the meaning and concept of pederasty (lawāṭ), different viewpoints have always existed among the jurists concerning the punishment of the pederast, to the extent that some jurists have d...
The fulfillment of promises, obligatory or recommended?(mostahab)?
In the popular view, the fulfillment of promises is recommended, apparently its reason being, in addition to consensus, some traditions. However, all of these reasons appear to be distorted and unreliable. On the contrar...
A study of the rule ‘Unforgivable in continuity (survival, sustainability) is not unforgivable in the beginning’
In Islamic jurisprudence we face phrases such as ‘Unforgivable in continuity (survival, sustainability) is not unforgivable in the beginning’ whose context suggest that this is considered by scholars as a known and accep...
Deliberations on the Condition for the Executor of Testament to be a Muslim
In many jurisprudential discourses, Islam is said to be a condition for the validity or permissibility of action. One of the most important of these instances, which is claimed to be unanimously agreed upon, is the execu...