Inferring the Rule of Non-Violence from Detailed Evidences in Islamic Jurisprudence

Introduction 
Violence is a phenomenon with a profound impact on human relations. Islam emphasizes the prohibition of violence and values such as dignity, justice, peace, and peaceful coexistence. The negation of violence in Islam aligns with the inherent dignity of human beings and ethical values. However, certain interpretations of Islamic penal laws might appear violent, posing challenges to understanding Islam's approach to punishment, especially in light of human rights criticisms. Some jurisprudents have even prevented the implementation of certain punishments. This study aims to establish the negation of violence as an independent juristic rule within Islamic jurisprudence, by referring to detailed jurisprudential evidence. It seeks to clarify ambiguities, define criteria for illicit violence, explore its jurisprudential foundations, and analyze the flexibility of Islamic penalties.
Methods
This research employs a descriptive-analytical approach to examine the jurisprudential and philosophical foundations of the negation of violence in Islam. First, the concept of violence and its identifying criteria are analyzed, distinguishing between value-laden and non-value-laden approaches. The criteria for identifying instances of violence are based on divine principles (inherent human dignity) and the role of custom. The distinction between "descriptive violence" and "attributive violence," as well as "fixed principles" (divine legislation) and "variable manifestations" (implementation across time and space), is also explored. The foundations of negation of violence are investigated based on Quranic evidence (prohibition of killing, inherent human dignity, justice, peace) and narrations (hadith on moderation and hadith on the easy and tolerant Hanifiyyah). Furthermore, the overarching principles of divine mercy and compassion, and the rule of forbidding alienation from religion, are analyzed from various jurisprudential perspectives. The research posits that penal laws are subject to divine objectives and real expediencies, thus possessing flexibility in implementation and manifestation according to temporal and spatial requirements. This study seeks to establish the rule-making of negation of violence in Islamic jurisprudence.
Results and Discussions 
The findings indicate that the negation of violence in Islam is not merely an ethical recommendation but a deeply rooted and operative juristic rule derivable from detailed Islamic evidence. This rule rests on two main pillars: "inherent human dignity" and "the sublime objectives of Sharia" (including mercy, justice, and human expediencies). Violence is defined as any harmful act involving coercion and an intent to destroy (physical, psychological, or spiritual). In identifying instances of violence, divine criteria (such as the verse "And We have certainly honored the children of Adam") and the role of sound societal custom are central. Any behavior deemed by sound custom as causing harm or insulting human dignity can be an instance of violence. At the foundational level, the Holy Quran prohibits killing ("whoever kills a soul...it is as though he had killed all mankind") and any aggression against others' rights. The principle of inherent human dignity (Quran, Surah Al-Isra, verse 70) negates any act violating human dignity. This dignity is a divine, inalienable gift, not forfeited by crime or sin. The Quran also emphasizes justice, benevolence, and peace, all of which are prerequisites for the negation of illicit violence. From the perspective of narrations, the hadith "We, the prophets, were commanded to deal leniently with people..." emphasizes the obligation or strong recommendation of leniency, and the hadith "I was sent with the easy and tolerant Hanifiyyah" indicates compassion and ease in Islam. A fundamental principle governing Sharia is divine mercy and compassion (Quran, Surah Al-Anbiya, verse 107), which frames the ultimate goal of punishments not as mere infliction of pain, but as ensuring public welfare and deterring corruption. This principle dictates that punishment implementation must consider proportionality, preservation of human dignity, prioritization of reform, and justice. The rule of forbidding alienation from religion and preserving Islam's image is another critical foundation for the negation of violence. Any act that causes aversion to Islam is prohibited; this rule reveals Sharia's objectives and correct understanding of primary rulings. Jurisprudents like Mirza-ye Na'ini and Imam Khomeini (RA) emphasized the influence of time and place on rulings and the necessity of Ijtihad (independent reasoning) considering contemporary exigencies. The conduct of the Ahl al-Bayt (AS) also shows instances where they prevented or altered punishments when their execution did not serve the true intent of the Legislator. The hadith "Ward off Hudud from Muslims as much as you can..." underscores caution in matters of life and preferring clemency over punishment in doubtful cases.
Conclusion
The negation of violence in Islam, as an independent juristic rule, is firmly grounded in "inherent human dignity" and "the sublime objectives of Sharia." The ultimate criterion for judging punishments as violent is the simultaneous assessment of divine texts and custom-driven expediency. Islamic penalties, though rooted in religious texts, are flexible in their implementation, considering custom, expediency, and human dignity. This flexibility stems from the divine wisdom that human understanding of expedience and harm evolves over time. Islam's particular caution in penal laws, given the sanctity of life and human dignity, and the Quran's emphasis on repentance, forgiveness, and mercy, demonstrates the prevalence of Islamic compassion. Therefore, rulings perceived as violent do not fulfill the Sharia's objectives and are not truly intended by the Legislator, which underscores Islam's comprehensiveness and eternity. The findings indicate that Islam opposes direct and indiscriminate violence, basing its penal policy on preventing the spread of crime. The existence of alternative reform-oriented mechanisms (such as proportionate discretionary punishments, amnesty, and reconciliation) alongside severe punishments further confirms this tolerant and justice-oriented approach. Based on these findings, transforming the rejection of violence into an independent rule in Islamic jurisprudence is an inevitable necessity for protecting the integrity of Islam and strengthening the foundations of justice and social peace.