Encyclopedia of Contemporary Jurisprudence

Jurisprudence of Nuclear Weapons (book): Difference between revisions

← Older editNewer edit →
VisualWikitext
Sarfipour (talk | contribs)
1,236 edits
No edit summary
Sarfipour (talk | contribs)
1,236 edits
Line 83: Line 83:
In the various articles of the book, different jurisprudential bases have been applied to reject the use of [[weapons of mass destruction]]:
In the various articles of the book, different jurisprudential bases have been applied to reject the use of [[weapons of mass destruction]]:
* '''[[Maqasid al-Shari'a|Purposes of the Sharia]]:''' In his review of the documents regarding the decree of non-conventional weapons, [[Abolqasem Alidoust]] discussed the purposes of the [[Sharia]] and concluded that based on dozens of verses from the [[Qur'an]], the purpose of God in sending the prophets, the revelation of the heavenly books and the legislation of the laws is to improve the condition of the servants in communication with God and in connection with each other. So, he has stated that reform is never provided by corruption and the use of [[weapons of mass destruction]] (p. 113).
* '''[[Maqasid al-Shari'a|Purposes of the Sharia]]:''' In his review of the documents regarding the decree of non-conventional weapons, [[Abolqasem Alidoust]] discussed the purposes of the [[Sharia]] and concluded that based on dozens of verses from the [[Qur'an]], the purpose of God in sending the prophets, the revelation of the heavenly books and the legislation of the laws is to improve the condition of the servants in communication with God and in connection with each other. So, he has stated that reform is never provided by corruption and the use of [[weapons of mass destruction]] (p. 113).
* '''Criticism of the principle of anything that leads to victory is permissible:''' [[Mohammad Javad Fazel Lankarani]] has put forward the opinion of [[Sahib al-Jawahir|Sahib Javaher]], who believes that no jurist has opposed the rule of " anything that leads to victory is permissible ", and then he criticized and believes that such a general rule cannot be attributed to the jurists that whatever the victory depends on is permissible (p. 89-90). Also, Naser Gurbania criticized Saheb Javaher's use of the mentioned rule and his attempt to assume it based on verses and narrations, and it was concluded that such a rule cannot be obtained from verses and implicitly considered the narrations related to it to be invalid. He called conquest and victory in any form incompatible with some verses and traditions, as well as the biography of the Prophet (PBUH) and Imam Ali (PBUH) (p. 195-197).
* '''Criticism of the principle of anything that leads to victory is permissible:''' [[Mohammad Javad Fazel Lankarani]] has put forward the opinion of [[Sahib al-Jawahir|Mohammad Hassan Najafi]], who believes that no jurist has opposed the rule of " anything that leads to victory is permissible ", and then he criticized and believes that such a general rule cannot be attributed to the jurists that whatever the victory depends on is permissible (p. 89-90). Also, Naser Gurbania criticized Saheb Javaher's use of the mentioned rule and his attempt to assume it based on verses and narrations, and it was concluded that such a rule cannot be obtained from verses and implicitly considered the narrations related to it to be invalid. He called conquest and victory in any form incompatible with some verses and traditions, as well as the biography of the Prophet (PBUH) and Imam Ali (PBUH) (p. 195-197).
* '''Criticism of reference to the rule of similitude:''' By referring to the verses of the [[Qur'an]] from which the rule of similitude is taken ([[Surah Al-Baqarah|Baqarah]], 194; [[Surah An-Nahl|Nahl]], 126; [[Surah Ash-Shura|Shuri]], 39-40), [[Sajjad Izadi|Seyyed Sajjad Izadhey]] asserts that from the general verse and hostility to the best of our ability, it is not possible to infer the use of [[weapons of mass destruction]]. Like many jurisprudential rules and generalities, he is also of the opinion that there are exceptions like the sanctity of war in the shrine (p. 273-275). Also, by referring to the verses of the Qur'an in this regard, Abolhassan Hassani states that the [[weapons of mass destruction]] that destroy the plow and the generation are specially outside the rule of countermeasures because the principle of personal punishment is accepted in the Islamic legal system (p. 297). According to him, even the rule of reciprocity has been assigned in many cases and the murderer who killed the victim by torture, revenge is prescribed only in the principle of murder, and torture is prohibited (p. 298).
* '''Criticism of reference to the rule of similitude:''' By referring to the verses of the [[Qur'an]] from which the rule of similitude is taken ([[Surah Al-Baqarah|Baqarah]], 194; [[Surah An-Nahl|Nahl]], 126; [[Surah Ash-Shura|Shuri]], 39-40), [[Sajjad Izadi|Seyyed Sajjad Izadhey]] asserts that from the general verse and hostility to the best of our ability, it is not possible to infer the use of [[weapons of mass destruction]]. Like many jurisprudential rules and generalities, he is also of the opinion that there are exceptions like the sanctity of war in the shrine (p. 273-275). Also, by referring to the verses of the Qur'an in this regard, Abolhassan Hassani states that the [[weapons of mass destruction]] that destroy the plow and the generation are specially outside the rule of countermeasures because the principle of personal punishment is accepted in the Islamic legal system (p. 297). According to him, even the rule of reciprocity has been assigned in many cases and the murderer who killed the victim by torture, revenge is prescribed only in the principle of murder, and torture is prohibited (p. 298).


Retrieved from "https://ency.feqhemoaser.com/en/view/Jurisprudence_of_Nuclear_Weapons_(book)"