An Analysis of the Rule of Maysur with a View on Tazahom

Abstract

One of the rational and analogical rules is the rule of maysur, which raises multiple questions. Specifically, whenever a legislator or lawmaker demands a compound subject that has elements and conditions, but the obligated party is completely incapable of fulfilling that compound, does the legislator's directive remain in proportion to the degree of maysur? Or does that degree of maysur and the possible maysoor fall, or is it replaced by a permissible alternative to avoid losing the benefit? Therefore, according to the author, the necessity and importance of addressing the rule of maysur and its applications considering tazahom are evident. The present article is descriptive-analytical and, using the library method, examines the aforementioned questions. The findings indicate that matters that make religion difficult and move it away from ease are either not legislated at all or, if legislated, pertain to conditions that are achievable for everyone. Jurists who have accepted the rule of maysur have considered it under the category of tazahom and have held different opinions based on their views. Some have prioritized the rule, some have substituted an alternative for the principal obligation, some have resorted to combining the emergent maysoor and the necessary alternative, and some have accepted the theory of taghyir. The result is that the rule of maysur is prevalent throughout jurisprudence and also includes obligations with alternatives, and its subject is determined by custom except in cases where the legislator has explicitly defined it.