سياقات توظيف القواعد الفقهية الكبرى في مسائل زرع ونقل الأعضاء: قاعدة "الضرورات تبيح المحظورات" نموذجا

Abstract EN

This paper aims to study the contexts of the application of the Islamic general legal principles on issues of organ transfer and transplanting operations empirical analytical study, focusing on the rule of necessities justify that which may be unlawful, this study concluded that those who with and who against organ transfer and transplanting both inferred by the Islamic general legal principles, so the supporters of organ transfer and transplanting inferred by undoing harm rules such as the rule of "harm must be removed", "a greater harm can be removed by a lesser harm", they also inferred by the rule of "choosing the better of two interests", "necessities justify that which may be unlawful", and those who reject organ transfer and transplanting inferred by the rule of "harm cannot be removed with similar harm", they look at it from opposite viewpoint, and they also inferred by the rule of "avoid harms takes priority over obtain interests".

this paper was also addressed the rule of "necessities justify that which may be unlawful" with a detailed examination, by determine its meaning, its evidence, its conditions, and its relationship to issues of organ transfer and transplanting, so the meaning of juridical necessity includes all concepts the mentioned by jurists and Maqasidi scholars, for this reason, necessity is a near-doom condition by guessing or happening, and the doom includes all the five essentials, it also includes individual and collective, also the infringement on the necessity leads to doom in worldly life, or in hereafter, or in both.