Prioritization Between Harms in Cases of Conflict: An Applied Jurisprudential Study

Abstract

This study examines the jurisprudence of balancing (fiqh al muwāzanāt) as a significant methodological approach in Islamic legal reasoning, emphasizing its scriptural foundations and its role in realizing the objectives of the Sharīʿa, particularly in contemporary contexts where interests and harms conflict. It employs the inductive method to trace scriptural texts and the opinions of jurists and legal theorists, the analytical method to study uṣūlī principles and maqāṣid based regulations, and the applied method through contemporary case studies. The tools of inquiry include Qurʾān and Sunna, overarching legal maxims, the general objectives of the Sharīʿa, and recognized juristic efforts. The research is structured into an introduction, two main sections, and conclusions: the first explores the concept of harm and its criteria in cases of conflict, while the second addresses the removal of harms under different considerations, focusing on the gradations of harms by relative importance, the principles of balancing when harms conflict, and the various approaches to repelling them. The study concludes that fiqh al muwāzanāt is an established principle in Islamic law, grounded in precise scientific criteria for weighing competing interests and harms, and that neglecting it leads to errors in fatwa and application, whereas its proper regulation ensures equilibrium between text, objective, and context.