نظرية البطلان و الفساد في الشريعة الإسلامية : دراسة فقهية أصولية

Abstract EN

The Islamic Law has not generally decreed rules and adjudications without being fully supported by a thing which guarantees both the achievements of the goals and the human’s commitment to such adjudications as well.

Accordingly the legislation involves original judgments clarifying the rights and duties as well as organizing the man’s relation with God , himself and other people as well.

It also includes supportive judgments protecting the original judgments.

Supportive judgments are divided into two types: reinforcement supportive judgment and terroristic supportive judgments.

Terroristic supportive judgments is also subdivided into punitive and civilized.

The physical , mental and financial punishments can be regarded as punitive supportive judgments.

However, cancelling, invalidating, undermining, arresting of judgments and returning rights to other people can be considered as civilized supportive judgments.

The Islamic doctine have actually different views regarding the concept of cancellation or corruption.

Advocates of a doctine believe that the two concepts are synonyms, while followers of other doctrines differentiate between them.

The Hanafees, for example, think both concepts are synonyms in issues related to worships and marriage, while they differ in issues related to businesses in respect of the causes and the results.

This paper consists of an introduction, a preface , two chapters and a conclusion .

The preface deals with the legislative supports in terms of encouragements and warnings having direct relations with the falsity and corruption.

The first chapter studies the two concepts: falsity and corruption.

It also includes some points of similarities and differences between them supported by some juristic examples.

The second chapter states the explanation of the judgments related to the falsity such as the causes and the results .

It also