A Research to Resolve the Apparent Conflict between the La Haraj Rule and the Harsh Acts of Islam; Answers and analyzes

The rule of negation of hardship is one of the most efficient and important jurisprudential rules in terms of application in various fields of jurisprudence. The generality of this rule seems to be incompatible with the troublesome and harsh rulings that exist in religion. Therefore, the present article seeks to answer the question of how one can both accept the proofs of the harsh rulings and commit oneself to rejecting the harsh rulings in religion. The results of this article which has been prepared through a descriptive-analytical and library method show that out of the total number of answers to this doubt, four approaches can be presented: rejecting the existence of harsh rulings in the religion (minor premise problem), not accepting the generality of the rule without restriction (major premise problem), modifying the meaning of Haraj (constriction) and not addressing the doubt itself. Among all answers, the doctrine of “restriction of the negation of constriction rule” is a suitable and perfect answer. Other answers are either essentially defective or require complementary evidence and therefore cannot be accepted as an independent answer.