Asylum is one of the fundamental institutions of international protection for persons who, due to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of their state of origin. The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol constitute the main framework of international refugee law. In contrast, Imami jurisprudence lacks an institution that is fully consistent with the modern concept of "refugee", but institutions such as amān and ahd, as well as rules such as self-preservation, keeping a promise, non-harm and prohibition of oppression, have significant protective capacities. The research question is to what extent a systematic and defensible relationship can be established between these jurisprudential capacities and the fundamental rules of international refugee law. The research examines the elements of well-founded fear, persecution, the five aspects, the conditions for deprivation of refugee status using a descriptive-analytical method and a comparative approach, and then compares the functioning of the amān institution and the general rules of Imami jurisprudence with them. The findings show that the closest convergence between the two systems is observed in the protective goal of security of life and the prohibition of placing a person in a dangerous situation; however, safety cannot be considered the legal equivalent of asylum, and verse 6 of Surah At-Tawbah alone is not the complete basis for the principle of non-refoulement within the meaning of Article 33 of the Convention.