عوارض الأهلية في الفقه الإسلامي والقانون البروناوي: دؤاسة مقارنة

Abstract

This research presents a comparative study conducted in order to investigate if there was any significant difference in the impediment of eligibility in Islamic jurisprudence and the law of Brunei. The research problem lies in the existence of many types of the impediments that might hinder or restrict one;s eligibility in Islamic jurisprudence and the Law of Brunei. Consequently, this analysis is carried out to explore the similarities and differences between the two laws. The aim of this study is to identify the meaning of eligibility and its types in Islamic jurisprudence and the Law of Brunei, and the implications if the impediments of eligibility in Islamic jurisprudence, and the extent if its compatibility with the law of Brunei. This research is inductive as the researcher extracted this study from Fiqh books and legal books with regard to the topic. In addition, a comparative descriptive approach was also applied where the researcher studied the comparisons between Islamic jurisprudence with the law of Brunei. Analytical approach was implemented in order to analyse the justifications that had been presented by the Islamic Jurisprudence and the law of Brunei. Some of the findings revealed that the law of Brunei has determined that the impediments that can nullify the eligibility fully is only lunacy, whereas Islamic jurisprudence comprises lunacy, drunkenness and ignorance. Additionally, the law of Brunei also defines that only the rights of a minor are restricted, while Islamic jurisprudence does not limit it to a minor but many others.