Liability Arising from the Elimination of Opportunity-Enabling Factors in Imamiyyah Jurisprudence: A Comparative Analysis with the Concept of Causation

In Imamiyyah jurisprudence, involuntary liability (ʿiṣmān-e-qahrī) arises in situations where an individual, without a prior contract, causes harm to another. One emerging issue in this domain is the liability resulting from the "elimination of opportunity-enabling factors"—that is, when an individual, through an act or omission, prevents another from realizing a legitimate benefit or deprives them of the opportunity to avoid a loss. Considering the expanding role of economic and occupational opportunities in contemporary economic structures, the notion of opportunity loss has garnered increasing jurisprudential and legal attention. The primary objective of this study is to clarify the jurisprudential position of liability arising from the loss of opportunity and to comparatively analyze it with the concept of causation (tasbīb). This research is conducted through a descriptive-analytical method and seeks to derive jurisprudential criteria for establishing liability by examining jurisprudential sources, principles of Islamic jurisprudence, the views of Imamiyyah jurists, and comparative legal texts. The research data have been collected from library sources, narrations (riwāyāt), juristic opinions (fatāwā), and legal texts. The findings indicate that although in classical jurisprudence, loss of profit (ʿadam al-nafʿ) alone does not suffice to establish liability, under the evolving norms of economic custom (ʿurf), legitimate opportunities may now be regarded as possessing pecuniary value. According to foundational legal principles such as destruction (itlâf), no harm (lā ḍarar), causation (tasbīb), and liability of possession (ḍamān al-yad), if a person through an act or omission causes the destruction of another’s legitimate opportunity, and such causation is attributable and recognizable under customary standards, and the harm incurred is assessable under customary metrics, then liability may indeed be established. Furthermore, the comparative analysis of opportunity loss with the jurisprudential rule of tasbīb reveals a significant degree of overlap, suggesting that opportunity loss may be understood as a novel instance of causation. Relying on jurisprudential principles and contemporary analytical tools, the liability arising from the destruction of opportunity-enabling factors is acceptable within Imamiyyah jurisprudence. Although its realization depends on the verification of customary causality, attributability, and the definitiveness of harm, the jurisprudential framework of Imamiyyah law presents considerable capacity for accommodating this type of liability, whether under the rubric of itlâf or tasbīb.