جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « no-harm rule » در نشریات گروه « علوم انسانی »

Hoarding means to save foodstuffs or to buy and avoid selling in the intention of increasing the price. Although the jurists agree on the preference of hoarding, they disagree on its defining law. The majority of the jurists agree that it is unlawful. However, a number of jurists hold that it is abominable. Of course, the sound view is the dominant doctrine, because the narrations on cursing and punishing the hoarders on the one hand, and paralleling them with thieves and drinkers on the other hand are not in any way consistent with abomination. Although the dominant doctrine among the jurists based on the contents of Sakouni,s tradition restricts hoarding to six items including wheat, barley, date, curry, vegetable oil and olive oil, it seems that the words should not be restricted and a broader scope of hoarding should be considered. Since according to Imam 'Ali,s  Covenant to Malik Ashtar in which hurting others is expressed as the criterion of hoarding as well as the no-harm rule hoarding cannot be restricted only to these items, but it also includes other needed non-food items.

Jurisprudential rules are general propositions that play a key role in deriving sharia rules. The rule of no-harm is one of these rules, according to which whenever the provisions of Islamic law cause harm to the obligees, it is lifted. An important drawback to the above rule is that in cases of non-legislation of the Holy Shari'a, no-harm did not have the necessary efficiency and accordingly, no rulings can be made to neutralize the loss, because in this case, he is faced with the great obstacle of establishing a new jurisprudence. The above point is the most basic focus of the study in the present study. The author has a serious critique of this theory and in a descriptive-analytical research, while enumerating the proponents and deniers of inclusion on the non-existent matters presented by them, he has put them in the test of jurisprudential criticism. The necessity of the discussion is that, assuming the proof of the rule in non-existent matters, this capacity can be used to respond to emerging issues and various jurisprudential challenges in cases of legal vacuum. The conclusion of the debate is that the establishment of a new jurisprudence in itself cannot be a barrier to proving the verdict with the rule of no-harm. Therefore, no-harm is unconditional and the provisions of the rule are both the negation of the verdict and the proof of the verdict; Therefore, no-harm has the power to veto and neutralize harmful judgments, as well as the power to enact and legislate.

One of the respected principles of human societies is the freedom of will of individuals to fulfill their interests. Therefore, not only individuals but also public forces cannot prevent the freedom of will of individuals to enjoy social and economic benefits under any pretext. However, in some cases, the free will of individuals to gain the most benefit is at odds with each other, so that the absolute release of the will of individuals to gain the most benefit, in some cases, harms others. Therefore, determining the limits of freedom of the will of individuals and balancing it and the harm that may be caused to others by this freedom is very important, so that determining it can have a broad impact on the overall progress of a nation-state. Due to this necessity, many schools of thought throughout history have commented on this issue, including the Islamic and Western schools of thought. The philosophical ideas of these two schools, one of which is included in the Islamic rule of "no-harm" and the other in the western rule of "harm", have led the present article to examine the commonalities and differences between these two rules in common interaction to finally conclude that from the perspective of jurisprudence, the freedom of will of individuals to fulfill their interests is of particular importance to ensure the maximum social welfare of society, and governments, in addition to not hindering the activities of the people, but in their management of conflict of interest, must first seek to consolidate the interests of individuals with each other and if that is not possible, give priority to satisfying the interests that have the most public function for most people in society.

Jurisprudential rules are general propositions that play a key role in deriving sharia rules. The rule of no-harm is one of these rules, according to which whenever the provisions of Islamic law cause harm to the obligees, it is lifted. An important drawback to the above rule is that in cases of non-legislation of the Holy Shari'a, no-harm did not have the necessary efficiency and accordingly, no rulings can be made to neutralize the loss, because in this case, he is faced with the great obstacle of establishing a new jurisprudence. The above point is the most basic focus of the study in the present study. The author has a serious critique of this theory and in a descriptive-analytical research, while enumerating the proponents and deniers of inclusion on the non-existent matters presented by them, he has put them in the test of jurisprudential criticism. The necessity of the discussion is that, assuming the proof of the rule in non-existent matters, this capacity can be used to respond to emerging issues and various jurisprudential challenges in cases of legal vacuum. The conclusion of the debate is that the establishment of a new jurisprudence in itself cannot be a barrier to proving the verdict with the rule of no-harm. Therefore, no-harm is unconditional and the provisions of the rule are both the negation of the verdict and the proof of the verdict; Therefore, no-harm has the power to veto and neutralize harmful judgments, as well as the power to enact and legislate.

According to the rules of civil responsibility, anyone who harms another, must be able to compensate. But if someone harms another along with administrating justice, is also responsible for the loss? In Islamic jurisprudence, the mentioned issue has been studied under the title of conflict between the no-harm rule and the domination rule and to sum up the theory has been strengthened that the no-harm rule governs the domination rule. In the case rights, the legislature has stated this in Article 40 of the Constitution and Article 132 of the Civil Code; by analyzing law principles it is concluded that if someone takes possession of his right that causes another one trouble and hardship, he is responsible, he would be prohibited of his possession if these seizures are not necessary for him legally.

According to the laws of Iran and the European Union, competition law can be briefly defined as a set of rules that regulate the relationship between traders and consumers, so as not to create monopoly or abuse of the dominant economic situation. Examining the laws and regulations of Iran and the European Union in the field of competition, it can be said that the common will of the legislator in Iran and the European Union is to enact competition law, combat monopoly and facilitate competition and prevent competition distortion. The purpose of writing this article is to study the rules of competition in the two legal systems of Iran and the European Union. With this explanation that competition law in Iran has a short history, while in the European Union, the issue of competition has been raised since its beginning and has been consolidated over time through the amendment of treaties and judicial procedure. It is worth noting that the establishment of competitive rules in Islamic jurisprudence as one of the sources of the Iranian legal system is precedented and, as the case may be, the competition rules in it are also mentioned. The research method in this article is based on library research and data analysis. In this article, the rules and regulations containing the rules of competition law in Iran and the European Union are enumerated, analyzed and examined in terms of similarities and differences, and finally, suggestions are made to address the challenges facing Iranian competition law.

Diseases that have high potency has affected the different aspects of human lives. The issues rising from this virus are also disturbing legal relationships, and in some cases cause conflicts between rights and commitments. Due to the importance of the health of the people, and the importance of the society’s interest, Islamic law requires the infected person to quarantine himself, as one of the best way to stop the spread of the virus so that he would not put others on risk of infection. Rules of custody necessitates parents to take care of their children in any circumstances, but if parents are classified as high risk people, that means if they are infected it may lead to death, “No-harm Rule” would discharge the duty of custody, so it’s not obligatory (Wajib) to take care of the infected child anymore. Even though the specifications of custody and absoluteness of its reasons make it impossible to consider taking care of infected child as forbidden (Haram). On the other hand, if any of parents get infected, “No-harm Rule” consider the value of health of the child so it would dismiss the custody. “No-harm Rule” also exclude the infected man from duties on alimony, since this duty may require him to break the quarantine, and it’s causing extra risk of infection in the society. In this situation it’s governor’s obligation to support him by providing financial assistances or offering part time jobs that are compatible with quarantine.

The ever-increasing expansion of urban societies and shortage of residential lands has caused to be aboveground and underground more valuable than the ground in some cases. This has led to the increasing conflict between individual and public ownership. Studying and analyzing the principles of ownership can reduce to a large extent the conflict between the private owners and custodians of urban affairs. the results of comparing the fundamentals of this type of ownership in Islamic, Iranian law and legal system of property rights in France, England, Germany, Switzerland, Egypt implies that the Controlling(Al-Taslit), Reverence(Ehteram), Compliance (Tabaiiat), Possession(Yad) and No-harm(La-Zarar) Rules are the most foundations of aboveground and underground property right. Hence the owner of the land has Possession power on them and this must be honored, as aboveground and underground are land accessories and any person who prevents legal possession of the owner, will be liable to compensate due to the damages.