A Critique of the Theory “Reconciliation between Muftaraqāt and Differentiation between Mujtama‘āt”
Journal Title: فقه و اصول - Year 2013, Vol 45, Issue 94
Abstract
In Sunnī and Imāmī jurisprudence, some have said that the legal base in devising rulings is founded on “differentiation between similarities (mutimāthilāt)” and “reconciliation between differences (mutafarriqāt)” and in other words, the legal basis is on the notion of considering the ruling of the similar subjects as different and the ruling of the different subjects as similar. Most of those maintaining the existence of this basis in legal law have stated it as a reason for the invalidity of analogy (qiyās); and some have resorted to it for solving the problems of the rulings that are apparently inconsistent with intellect. The only reason of those maintaining this view is the examples in which the ruling for the similar subjects is apparently considered as different and the ruling of the different subjects as similar. Some jurists have rejected the existence of such basis in legal law and have mentioned some responses to the claims of its proponents, most of which indicate the legal laws as having a cause (mu‘allal) and that it is not possible to consider the ruling of the similar subjects as different. In this writing, we examine the origin of this rule and the arguments of its believers and deniers. What is obtained as a conclusion from the examination of this claim and its responses is that whether the basis is on judicial doctrine, which regards the rulings as centered around the interests (masāliḥ) and abuses (mafāsid), or based on the Ash‘rite doctrine that does not regard the rulings subject to specific reasons, such a proposition is not resolute.
Authors and Affiliations
ḤUsayn ṢāBirī, MūSā Zarqī
Keywords
Related Articles
- EP ID EP184021
- DOI 10.22067/fiqh.v0i0.11844
- Views 115
- Downloads 0
Replacement of certitude as to subject by authorized conjectural proof (amara)
Although Mohaghegh Khorasani has raised the impossibility of replacement of certitude as to subject by authorized conjectural proof (amara) due to the impediment of conjunction in consideration; Sheikh Ansari, while reje...
Critical Review and Analysis of Legal Opinions concerning the Rule “The Usurper is Confronted most Severely”
The Islamic law considers people’s financial affairs as important and has devised special rules for it so that the citizens may live under their protection. Strictness on the usurper of other people’s properties is part...
Examination of the Evidences for the Legitimacy of Buying and Selling Body Organs in Shī‘a Jurisprudence
Following developments in medical sciences and humankind’s acquiring new technologies, which provided using body organs and their products for the treatment of some illnesses, some legal questions were little by little s...
A Deliberation on the Necessity of Imitating the Most Learned
The present article studies the issue of the “necessity of imitating the most learned (a‘lam)”. To this end, while comparing the evidences of the proponents and the opponents of the necessity of imitating the most learne...
Reviewing the impact of abuse and wastage in the lent (trust), a comparative study in Islamic jurisprudence and civil law
Imamiyah jurists have had different views regarding the rights of the trustee in terms of abuse and wastage in the lent (trust); from the known theory of the claim for damages not being associated with the abuses and was...