"The relationship between the theory of abuse and the rule of legal permissibility contradicts liability in Islamic jurisprudence: Arbitrary divorce as a model - A comparative study."

Arbitrary divorce as a model: A comparative study.

Abstract

This study addressed the relationship between the theory of abuse and the principle that legitimate permissibility contradicts liability, using arbitrary divorce as a comparative study model. It aimed to clarify the criteria for abuse in Islamic jurisprudence and law, then to outline the position of the principle of legitimate permissibility contradicting liability within the theory, and finally to apply this to arbitrary divorce.

The study relied on a comparative approach, analyzing the legal texts related to the topic and comparing them with legal legislations, particularly the comparison between the various legal rulings regarding arbitrary divorce, and explaining them in light of the theory of abuse in the use of rights. Additionally, it utilized an analytical deductive method to derive the legal rulings and legal choices related to the subject, and to analyze general and particularly legal texts.

One of the most important findings of the study was that the relationship between the theory of abuse and the mentioned principle is that the principle is constrained by the prohibition of causing severe harm to others, whether in terms of intent or result; because abuse in the use of rights is, in fact, a deviation from legitimate permissibility. Thus, legitimate permissibility is constrained by the prohibition of abuse, which is also what the Jordanian civil law stipulates.