حالات و زمانہ کی رعایت سے متعلق جمہور فقہاء کرام کی تصریحات (عصر حاضر کے تناظر میں ایک مطالعہ)

Human life is the subjective of change with the changing circumstances. If we look at the condition of our late grandfather or great – grandfather and look at the contemporary situation; it will not be difficult to understand this change. The rules about some important issues had been changed with the passage of time. In the initial descendants of Adam the marriage of brothers and sisters was allowed, after the flood of Noah, due to the scarcity of animals, the meat of all kinds of animals was allowed, two sisters were married to Hazrat Yaqub (A.S) at the same time, but the rules had been reversed afterwards. Even in the time of the Holy Prophet and the rightly guided caliphs, such changes took place and they were associated with the changing conditions. Initially it was banned to visit the graves and the sacrificial meet was not allowed to keep for more than three days and it was mandatory upon the women to attend the congregational prayer but afterwards the permissions were granted contrarily. Fortunately, we have a body of jurisprudence in the light of which not only contemporary issues can be solved but also guidance can be provided for the future. Our leading Jurists, who are followed, have done a remarkable job in this regard. The following article reviews the teachings of the three jurists, namely Imam Shafi’i, Imam Malik, and Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal and teachings of their glean jurists. It will make clear that under changing circumstances these jurists seemed to agree on change. Therefore, by using the efforts of these jurists, we can try to resolve the problems of our contemporary changes and requirements throughout the Muslim World.

Impact of Ambivalent Supervision on Employee Outcomes: Introducing Employee State Paranoia As Underlying Mechanism

This empirical study investigates the influence of ambivalent supervision style on employee outcomes. Ambivalent supervision style is a new form of leadership, which is categorized as a form of destructive leadership; however, there is scant literature on ambivalent leadership in organizational studies. Numerous studies have pointed out that there is a need to study this form of leadership and its influence on employee outcomes. Thus, this research is an attempt to understand the phenomenon of influence of ambivalent supervision style on positive and negative employee outcomes. It has been hypothesized that ambivalent leadership has significant negative effect on employees’ outcomes of task performance, organizational citizenship behaviors directed towards individual and organization and positive influence on employees’ counterproductive work behaviors directed towards individual and organization. Additionally, employee state paranoia as underlying psychological process has been investigated as a mediating variable and co-worker support as a buffering mechanism. By doing so, the current research advances the role of employee state paranoia as a mediating mechanism. The framework of the study is guided by transactional theory of stress, which proposes that employees engage in coping mechanisms to offset the effects of stressors. Thus, co-worker support as a coping mechanism has shown positive trends. The study used quantitative research design and cross sectional data were collected through self-administered questionnaires distributed among the service sector organizations in Punjab, Pakistan. A total of 645 respondents corresponding to 129 dyads were found usable for data analysis. Confirmatory factor analysis and multi-level Hierarchical Linear Modeling was used to test the moderated mediation model. Results support the hypothesized relationships. The results indicate that ambivalent supervision style negatively effects positive employee outcomes and positively effects employee negative outcomes (counterproductive work behaviors). The results further highlight that employee state paranoia partially mediates the relationship between ambivalent supervision style and employee outcomes. The buffering mechanism using coworker support holds true for positive employee outcomes but is insignificant for negative employee outcomes.