التحلیلُ الفقهي لِلقواعدِ المُرتبِطةِ بسِیاساتِ الحُكومةِ الإسلامیة في دَعمِ العُمّال

The present study aims to identify and analyze the jurisprudential principles that underpin the protection of workers’ rights within the framework of Islamic governance. The author seeks to demonstrate how these principles can serve as a foundation for fair and supportive policy‑making toward workers. To address the existing gap in the literature, this research attempts to provide a Sharia‑based model for improving workers’ conditions. The central issue explored in this paper concerns the multiple challenges faced by workers in Islamic societies, including violations of rights, lack of health and safety protections, and various forms of economic exploitation. Despite the strong emphasis of the Qur’an and the Sunnah on justice, fairness, and the preservation of human dignity, it appears that neglect of these principles and the failure to align legal systems with jurisprudential rules have contributed to the erosion of workers’ rights. Accordingly, this study seeks to answer the question of which jurisprudential principles can serve as appropriate religious foundations for Islamic governmental policy‑making in comprehensive support of workers, and how these principles can be reflected in current laws and regulations. The research employs a descriptive‑analytical method with a problem‑oriented approach. Drawing on library sources—including Qur’anic verses, narrations of the Prophet’s Household (peace be upon them), classical Imami jurisprudential texts, and statutory laws of the Islamic Republic of Iran such as
the Constitution and the Labor Law—the author extracts and analyzes relevant jurisprudential principles. This analysis is conducted on three levels: conceptual, inferential, and applicative, with the aim of clarifying the logical relationship between religious foundations and contemporary legal requirements. The findings indicate that the three jurisprudential principles of human dignity (karāmah), no‑harm (lā ḍarar), and causation (tasbīb) constitute the primary religious bases for protecting workers. The selection of these three principles is grounded in a logical hierarchy of worker protection within Islamic jurisprudence. The principle of dignity is adopted as the fundamental and value‑based foundation, evaluating all policies and behaviors in light of the inherent worth of the human being. The no‑harm principle prohibits any action or condition that inflicts material or moral harm on workers—including unsafe workplaces, inadequate wages, or psychological pressure—and establishes enforceable obligations to prevent such harm. Finally, the principle of causation addresses gaps in responsibility, particularly in complex industrial settings where direct causation between the employer’s conduct and the worker’s injury may not be immediately evident. More specifically, the principle of dignity, based on Qur’an 17:70, affirms the inherent honor granted to all human beings and deems any conduct that undermines the worker’s status or humanity as unacceptable. This principle obligates employers and the government not only to avoid modern forms of servitude and humiliation but also to uphold workers’ dignity by ensuring psychological well‑being, job security, and opportunities for skill development. The no‑harm principle, grounded in the Prophetic tradition “There is no harm and no harming in Islam” and related Qur’anic teachings, prohibits any form of harm to others. In the context of labor relations, it invalidates unsafe working conditions, excessive working hours, unfair wages, and any practice that threatens the physical or mental health of workers, while imposing liability on employers for compensating resulting damages. The principle of causation, by establishing civil liability for indirect harm, holds employers responsible even when they do not directly cause an accident, provided that negligence in providing safety equipment or creating hazardous conditions contributed to the harm. This principle is reflected in modern labor regulations through mandatory social insurance and compliance with occupational safety standards. In conclusion, the study emphasizes that these jurisprudential principles are not merely abstract doctrines but possess strong potential for translation into practical policies and protective legislation. They can bridge the gap between religious texts and the needs of contemporary industrial societies, enabling lawmakers to formulate regulations that are both Sharia‑compliant and responsive to emerging labor issues. Ultimately, an Islamic government can, by relying on the principle of dignity, design policies that enhance workers’ quality of life; by applying the no‑harm principle, enforce strict occupational health and safety standards; and by invoking the principle of causation, establish an effective system of insurance and compensation. Thus, this research proposes an Islamic model for achieving social justice in the workplace.