Examining of Obstacle of the Establishment of a New Jurisprudence in Proving the Verdict with the Rule of No-Harm

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.