A Comparative Study of the Viewpoints of Amedi and Sharif Al-Murtadha in Implications of Prohibition for the Corruption of Contract

The implication of prohibition for the contract corruption is one of the issues in which the Islamic jurists do not have a single opinion. The disagreement in this issue has significant jurisprudential effects. Amedi, one of the most famous theologians, same as the majority of Islamic jurists, believes that if prohibition belongs to the essence of the contract or its necessary description, the prohibition means corruption of contract. However, if it belongs to an external description, it does not have such an implication. Contrary to most proponents of this view, who consider the basis of corruption to be lexical, Amedi, citing some theological principles and rational and lexical arguments, considers the basis of corruption to be reason and concept. Sharif Al-Murtadha, one of the forerunners of the Imamiyya, believes that the prohibition itself does not imply corruption of contract, and the claim of corruption requires the external evidence. However, in the Shari‘a prohibitions, there is a principle called the custom of Shari‘a, which implies corruption, unless proven otherwise. Sharif Al-Murtadha’s main bases are rational and lexical arguments. There are also signs of theological foundations in his view. The absolute implication of the prohibition for corruption and the promise of the difference between invalidity and corruption are two other views, each of which has its supporters. The most justified view in this regard seems to be the view of those who believe in the literal meaning of the prohibition of corruption if it belongs to the essence or the necessary description of the contract. This view is mostly in accordance with religious and lexical arguments and rational and customary requirements.