PUT ARTICLE TITLE HERE (35)

This study aims to examine and establish the juristic principle that a prohibition entails invalidity according to the Hanbali school of Islamic jurisprudence.It explores the extent to which a legal prohibition indicates the invalidity of the prohibited act and the non-existence of its legal effects, whether in acts of worship or transactions.The study begins by defining the key terms forming the principle-implication, prohibition, and invalidity-both linguistically and technically, clarifying that the subject of discussion concerns an absolute prohibition indicating unlawfulness without any qualifying evidence.It further addresses the fundamental question of whether such a prohibition necessarily leads to invalidity or not.The research also examines the legal implications of prohibition by analyzing its forms and meanings in Islamic legal theory, concluding that the original meaning of prohibition is prohibition (arm) unless contextual evidence suggests otherwise.In addition, the study categorizes prohibited acts into those prohibited in themselves, those prohibited due to an inseparable attribute, and those prohibited due to an external or accompanying factor, highlighting the role of this classification in juristic disagreement.The study then presents the major scholarly opinions on the principle and their evidences, ultimately favoring the view that prohibition generally entails invalidity.Finally, it focuses on the Hanbali position, demonstrating that the Hanbali jurists are among the most expansive schools in applying this principle.They hold that prohibition entails invalidity when it relates to the essence of the act or an inseparable attribute, while offering nuanced positions when the prohibition concerns an external factor, depending on whether it undermines a condition or requirement of the act.The study concludes that differences among jurists stem from differing approaches to legal reasoning and the determination of whether the prohibition is inseparable from the act or independent of it.

Publication Details

Journal
Humanitarian and Natural Sciences Journal
Published
2025-12-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.53796/hnsj71/35
Primary Topic
Diverse Scientific and Economic Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

PUT ARTICLE TITLE HERE (35)

Humanitarian and Natural Sciences Journal
Diverse Scientific and Economic Studies
article

PUT ARTICLE TITLE HERE (35)

article en

Abstract

This study aims to examine and establish the juristic principle that a prohibition entails invalidity according to the Hanbali school of Islamic jurisprudence.It explores the extent to which a legal prohibition indicates the invalidity of the prohibited act and the non-existence of its legal effects, whether in acts of worship or transactions.The study begins by defining the key terms forming the principle-implication, prohibition, and invalidity-both linguistically and technically, clarifying that the subject of discussion concerns an absolute prohibition indicating unlawfulness without any qualifying evidence.It further addresses the fundamental question of whether such a prohibition necessarily leads to invalidity or not.The research also examines the legal implications of prohibition by analyzing its forms and meanings in Islamic legal theory, concluding that the original meaning of prohibition is prohibition (arm) unless contextual evidence suggests otherwise.In addition, the study categorizes prohibited acts into those prohibited in themselves, those prohibited due to an inseparable attribute, and those prohibited due to an external or accompanying factor, highlighting the role of this classification in juristic disagreement.The study then presents the major scholarly opinions on the principle and their evidences, ultimately favoring the view that prohibition generally entails invalidity.Finally, it focuses on the Hanbali position, demonstrating that the Hanbali jurists are among the most expansive schools in applying this principle.They hold that prohibition entails invalidity when it relates to the essence of the act or an inseparable attribute, while offering nuanced positions when the prohibition concerns an external factor, depending on whether it undermines a condition or requirement of the act.The study concludes that differences among jurists stem from differing approaches to legal reasoning and the determination of whether the prohibition is inseparable from the act or independent of it.

Humanitarian and Natural Sciences JournalVol. 7(1)
Openalex Percentile: Top 18%
Diverse Scientific and Economic Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.