The Jurisprudential Ruling on "Intentionality and Inclination Toward Permissible Emergency and Quasi-Emergency" in the Jurisprudence of Art

In cases such as necessity ( idhtirar ), conflict of duties ( tazahum ), and the ruler’s consideration of expediency ( maslahat ), a divinely prohibited ( haram ) ruling may practically become permissible (jayiz ). In this research, such an act—which originates in prohibition but is temporarily rendered lawful—is termed "permissible emergency" ( jayiz idhtirari ). A legally responsible person ( mukallaf ) may, in their individual practice, intend to perform this "permissible emergency" act with the aim of deriving pleasure (qasd al-ladhdhah ) or deliberately committing its prohibited aspect ( wajh al-haram). Similarly, in the realm of governance jurisprudence ( fiqh al-hukmrani ), particularly art governance—which has a more direct influence on public culture—the ruling authority might promote and propagate such "permissible emergency" acts while indulging in or intentionally emphasizing their prohibited dimensions. The core question of this research is: What is the nature of the intention to derive pleasure from a "permissible emergency" act, and what constitutes the intention to commit its prohibited aspect?
Using a jurisprudential ( ijtihadi ) methodology, this article examines the constraints mentioned in the Quranic verses on necessity (e.g., 5:3, 6:145, 16:115) and concludes that deriving pleasure from a permissibly emergency act ( halal idhtirari ) or deliberately committing its prohibited aspect is not permissible ( jayiz ). Furthermore, the state, in its governance role, must avoid actions that normalize sins ( ‘adi-sazi gunah*) temporarily permitted under necessity, conflict, or expediency.