A Study of Land Acquisition by Municipalities from the Perspective of Islamic Jurisprudence and Law (Book): Difference between revisions

==== '''Principle of No Harm (<nowiki>''Lā Ḍarar''</nowiki>)''' ====

the author, first, engages in a detailed discussion to define this principle and provide the related documentation. He considers Principle of No Harm (<nowiki>''Lā Ḍarar''</nowiki>) to take precedence over The Rule of Dominion (<nowiki>''</nowiki>Taṣlīṭ<nowiki>''</nowiki>), which acknowledges personal rights. In essence,The Rule of Dominion (<nowiki>''</nowiki>Taṣlīṭ<nowiki>''</nowiki>) is part of the evidence for primary decrees, while Principle of No Harm (<nowiki>''</nowiki>Lā Ḍarar<nowiki>''</nowiki>) is part of the evidence for secondary decrees. In these instances, there is no fundamental conflict, and the contradiction between the two evidences is resolved through common interpretative understanding or governance. This means that the owner's actions are restricted to non-essential cases, and the implementation of municipal plans is prioritized over the owner's right to act. The author further presents another scenario involving the conflict of two harms (rather than the conflict between Taṣlīṭ and no harm). He argues that, on one hand, the owner's actions, due to the non-implementation of municipal plans, cause harm to the community, while on the other hand, the execution of municipal plans results in harm to the owner. Here, he also prioritizes the prevention of the greater and more significant harm, namely the harm to the community, over individual harm, and constrains the owner's authority to situations where no harm befalls the community. He believes that with the compensation for properties by municipalities, the owner does not incur any harm. Furthermore, the author considers positive laws to take precedence over Rule of Dominion (<nowiki>''</nowiki>Taṣlīṭ<nowiki>''</nowiki>) and asserts that this will not lead to conflict. According to the writer, this principle is also enshrined in law, as exemplified by Article 40 of the Constitution, which states that no one may exercise their rights in a manner that harms others or infringes upon public interests (p. 13-156).

According to this principle, actions that may result in severe and unbearable hardship are prohibited. Municipal regulations that ensure the comfort and well-being of the public, if not enforced, lead to public distress; therefore, based on this rule, public rights take precedence over individual rights (pp. 156-161).