The scientific meeting “Applications of the jurisprudential rule of negation of oppression to governmental and social cases” was held at the Research Institute of Contemporary Jurisprudence.

In this meeting, which was held on Wednesday, December 8, Hujjat al-Islam wa al-Muslimin Dr. Sayfullah Sarami said: The main claim is that among the jurisprudence rules, we have a rule called the rule of negation of oppression, which is attached to the rulings.  Just like the negation of Haraj is attached to all commands.  That is, as God has said, I do not want my rulings to cause embarrassment, He does not want rulings to cause oppression.

He added: The justification for this meeting is the discussion of the implementation of this rule, because my discussion is not related to government issues.  Besides, I would like this discussion to be discussed in a freer group and to see the reflection of this discussion in social and moral issues.

He explained that our discussion is out of order, but the place of our discussion is where mysticism is recognized as oppression.  This rule says that where there is an oppressive ruling, the ruling is limited and will not be implemented.

Of course, he considered his claim to be different from the rule of justice, which states that if a ruling is just, then it is a Shari’ah ruling.

Hujjat al-Islam wa al-Muslimin Dr. Sarami considered the reason for this rule to be based on the words of the verses that negate oppression in the world of legislation and development, such as the verse “And Allah is not unjust towards the servants”.

He further pointed out three categories of adaptations in the rule and said: The first category is presented in the Shari’ah evidence itself.  Like the verse “LA yuhib Allah al-Jahr bil su’ illa  man zulim” which states that the assumption of being oppressed is outside of this ruling.

This professor of the field and university added: The second category is the cases where the jurists have reached cruelty in some of their conclusions;  Like the argument that the author of the book al-Jawahir raises in Qisas in Volume 42, page 254, that in the discussion of al-Qisas, if a person strikes a blow that reaches the bone membrane, the victim must retaliate to the same extent as the author of the book al-Jawahir has opposed here, and there are different forms.  It takes into account that revenge is not considered injustice.

Sir Sarami pointed out: The examples of the third category are related to customary examples.  For example, although the child’s obedience to the parents is obligatory, it is the same in the case that the child’s obedience causes him to not progress academically and is cruel to his future?

This professor of Qum seminary added: Another example, which is more governmental, is about the implementation of Hudud and it has many benefits.  For example, if a young man who does not have any possibilities of marriage and has unbearable conditions, if he commits adultery, can the Shari’ah ruler limit him?  We say that custom in such cases considers the ruling to be unjust, and God says: “And your Lord is not unjust towards the servants.”

He said about the practical result of this opinion: The result is that we can add to the law in the same way in implementing our limits.  For example, in cases like Hudud, one should pay attention to the conditions, whether it is oppression or not.

Another part of this session was questions and answers.  Among Hujjat al-Islam, Dr. Busliki raised two issues;  The first form was about moral relativity.  But the second clause was related to the method of implementing this rule.  This means why this rule can only be applied to details and cannot be used as a general rule.  Referring to the idea of ​​the Hujjat al-Islam, a preacher in the idea of ​​the characteristics of the Shari’ah, part of it is due to the fact that some of the sources of religion have not reached us, but from what has reached us and relying on the theory of the negation of oppression, we can obtain the reality of what has not reached us, because the characteristics of Shari’ah have been clarified for us.  He said: Now my question is, why can’t a general ruling be obtained from your rules?

Hujjat al-Islam wa al-Muslimin Sarami replied: We have no evidence for this and we cannot make a ruling.  Because these are negating haraj.  That is, God does not want to remove haraj, because every ruling has some kind of difficulty, but the purpose is to remove specific harm.