Definition of etymology

The first thing: the definition of the science of origins.

The discussion of the definition of the science of uṣool falls into three directions: the definition of uṣūl, its subject, and the division of its research:

 

Definition of etymology

 

The first aspect – in the definition of etymology:

There are many sciences that we need in the context of deducing the legal ruling, such as the science of men that talks about the reliability of narrators, and linguistics that talks about the meanings of words that we need to understand in deduction, and logic that shows the methods of inference and so on. The place of deduction is distinguished by a technical distinction from other sciences that need it, or that it is nothing but a mere compilation of various topics that we needed in deduction and were not included in the other sciences, so we had to find another science that we call the science of origins that includes what was not included in the other sciences that touched it. Need to elicit?

The main definition of etymology: The main definition by which the science of Usul is defined is what has been conveyed in sufficient terms that it is a knowledge of rules that pave the way for deducing a legal ruling. Three faults were taken for this definition: The first blame: All other sciences that we need in deduction also give us extraneous rules in deduction such as rules of measurements in logic, or the trustworthiness of people in men that is taken with what they transmit and so on. On this basis, al-Muhaqiq al-Naini (may his secret be sanctified) added to the definition a restriction: that these rules are a major fact for measuring deduction (1) not a minor one; In order to bring out the rest of the extraneous sciences in deduction. It is possible that the meaning of the companions from the aforementioned definition - which is the knowledge of rules that pave the way for deduction - is the same as what the investigator Naini (may his secret be holy) said, meaning: he means the major rules for deduction. However, this restriction does not fit the definition; As he brings out many of the topics that are usually included in the science of origins: Among them: the topics of minor appearances, such as the appearance of the command in the obligation, the prohibition in the prohibition, the condition in the concept, the absolute in the absolute, and so on; They are all revised   (1) See the best reports, part 1, which includes the comments of Sayyid Al-Khoei, p. 3, and Fawa`at al-Usool, p. 18, edition of the teachers’ group.

Minor to major assertion of apparition, so on the basis of this minor and major, the process of deduction takes place. Including: the topic of the permissibility of the combination of command and prohibition and its non-permissibility, for if we conclude in it that it is not permissible, then this means: that the command and the prohibition that agree on one resource are in conflict, such as prayer and not usurpation, for example. Thus, the inference is made. And if we end up in it on the permissibility, this would mean: that the generalization of the command and the release of the prohibition of the article of the meeting are preserved, and this refines the minor to the major authoritative release. Including: a topic: that the command of a thing necessitates the prohibition of its opposite, or not? If we say by necessity, since the prohibition of the opposite is not a legal ruling; Because it is a prohibition by someone else that does not accept conceit or excuse. The jurisprudential result is the invalidity of the opposite if it is worship, for example. This research revises the minor to the major that the prohibition in worship leads to invalidity, for example. And if we say that it is not required, then this means completing the release of the opposite order, for example, so that it is less than the most authoritative of the absolute. It has become clear from what we have mentioned: that this first accusation has so far remained unanswered; That is why some modified this definition to other definitions. The second culpability: What is implied in the sufficiency that this definition does not include practical principles; Because it is not in the process of achieving the ruling, but rather it is defining the job after imposing doubt on the ruling. For this reason, the person with sufficient capacity added to the definition a sentence (or which he concludes in the workplace) in order to ward off this deficiency. However, this addition does nothing; The intended meaning is the knowledge of the applicable mosque

Minor to major assertion of apparition, so on the basis of this minor and major, the process of deduction takes place. Including: the topic of the permissibility of the combination of command and prohibition and its non-permissibility, for if we conclude in it that it is not permissible, then this means: that the command and the prohibition that agree on one resource are in conflict, such as prayer and not usurpation, for example. Thus, the inference is made. And if we end up in it on the permissibility, this would mean: that the generalization of the command and the release of the prohibition of the article of the meeting are preserved, and this refines the minor to the major authoritative release. Including: a topic: that the command of a thing necessitates the prohibition of its opposite, or not? If we say by necessity, since the prohibition of the opposite is not a legal ruling; Because it is a prohibition by someone else that does not accept conceit or excuse. The jurisprudential result is the invalidity of the opposite if it is worship, for example. This research revises the minor to the major that the prohibition in worship leads to invalidity, for example. And if we say that it is not required, then this means completing the release of the opposite order, for example, so that it is less than the most authoritative of the absolute. It has become clear from what we have mentioned: that this first accusation has so far remained unanswered; That is why some modified this definition to other definitions. The second culpability: What is implied in the sufficiency that this definition does not include practical principles; Because it is not in the process of achieving the ruling, but rather it is defining the job after imposing doubt on the ruling. For this reason, the person with sufficient capacity added to the definition a sentence (or which he concludes in the workplace) in order to ward off this deficiency. However, this addition does nothing; The intended meaning is the knowledge of the applicable mosque

Minor to major assertion of apparition, so on the basis of this minor and major, the process of deduction takes place. Including: the topic of the permissibility of the combination of command and prohibition and its non-permissibility, for if we conclude in it that it is not permissible, then this means: that the command and the prohibition that agree on one resource are in conflict, such as prayer and not usurpation, for example. Thus, the inference is made. And if we end up in it on the permissibility, this would mean: that the generalization of the command and the release of the prohibition of the article of the meeting are preserved, and this refines the minor to the major authoritative release. Including: a topic: that the command of a thing necessitates the prohibition of its opposite, or not? If we say by necessity, since the prohibition of the opposite is not a legal ruling; Because it is a prohibition by someone else that does not accept conceit or excuse. The jurisprudential result is the invalidity of the opposite if it is worship, for example. This research revises the minor to the major that the prohibition in worship leads to invalidity, for example. And if we say that it is not required, then this means completing the release of the opposite order, for example, so that it is less than the most authoritative of the absolute. It has become clear from what we have mentioned: that this first accusation has so far remained unanswered; That is why some modified this definition to other definitions. The second culpability: What is implied in the sufficiency that this definition does not include practical principles; Because it is not in the process of achieving the ruling, but rather it is defining the job after imposing doubt on the ruling. For this reason, the person with sufficient capacity added to the definition a sentence (or which he concludes in the workplace) in order to ward off this deficiency. However, this addition does nothing; The intended meaning is the knowledge of the applicable mosque

Minor to major assertion of apparition, so on the basis of this minor and major, the process of deduction takes place. Including: the topic of the permissibility of the combination of command and prohibition and its non-permissibility, for if we conclude in it that it is not permissible, then this means: that the command and the prohibition that agree on one resource are in conflict, such as prayer and not usurpation, for example. Thus, the inference is made. And if we end up in it on the permissibility, this would mean: that the generalization of the command and the release of the prohibition of the article of the meeting are preserved, and this refines the minor to the major authoritative release. Including: a topic: that the command of a thing necessitates the prohibition of its opposite, or not? If we say by necessity, since the prohibition of the opposite is not a legal ruling; Because it is a prohibition by someone else that does not accept conceit or excuse. The jurisprudential result is the invalidity of the opposite if it is worship, for example. This research revises the minor to the major that the prohibition in worship leads to invalidity, for example. And if we say that it is not required, then this means completing the release of the opposite order, for example, so that it is less than the most authoritative of the absolute. It has become clear from what we have mentioned: that this first accusation has so far remained unanswered; That is why some modified this definition to other definitions. The second culpability: What is implied in the sufficiency that this definition does not include practical principles; Because it is not in the process of achieving the ruling, but rather it is defining the job after imposing doubt on the ruling. For this reason, the person with sufficient capacity added to the definition a sentence (or which he concludes in the workplace) in order to ward off this deficiency. However, this addition does nothing; The intended meaning is the knowledge of the applicable mosque

Chosen definition of etymology: As for the chosen definition of the science of principles, it is to say: The science of principles is the knowledge of the common rules of jurisprudential deductive analogy. And the clarification of this: that the attribution of the science of fundamentals to the science of jurisprudence is the same as the relation of the science of logic to all other sciences, and the science of logic deals with The common forms of inference between the sciences, and the science of principles deals with the common forms of inference in jurisprudence. By analyzing the restrictions that we take in defining the science of assets, there are three restrictions: The first restriction: that the fundamental rules do not take a specific material from the fiqh subjects, I mean: a specific act of the taxpayers such as prayer, fasting, zakat, etc. (1), that is, they are not subject to any condition regarding these articles, just as logical rules are not taken in a specific article. It is a science subject, it does not talk about physical substances, mathematical numbers, medical drugs or anything else, but rather deals with the form of inference that applies in all these sciences. With this restriction, the pure linguistic rules come out, such as the meaning of the word “level” on the soil or the absolute face of the earth, because it only serves to derive a ruling for a verb added to the soil or the face of the earth, and it is not without a condition in terms of the specificity of the verbs, and issues of hadith science come out, I mean: Single narrations, for each narration of them shows a ruling specific to a specific act of verbs, and also comes out the jurisprudential inductive rules that are such as the rule: The evidence for the validity of the sale indicates the guarantee, for example, that it is specific to a specific material such as the article of sale, just as the rules of jurisprudence (2) ) which is from   (1) What our professor al-Shahid (may God have mercy on him) reported in the discussion of the companionship from the previous session, that is: the first session is a more accurate expression than the expression mentioned here, which is: that the articles of jurisprudence that are not taken in the fundamental rules are every primary or secondary title related to a realistic ruling such as Upper Egypt. For example, which is a primary address, and like damage that is a secondary address. Refer to our book in the report of his research (may God have mercy on him), the fifth part of the second section, p. 25 according to the first edition according to the Ismailian Press and Binding. (2) It is also outside the second entry.

Chosen definition of etymology: As for the chosen definition of the science of principles, it is to say: The science of principles is the knowledge of the common rules of jurisprudential deductive analogy. And the clarification of this: that the attribution of the science of fundamentals to the science of jurisprudence is the same as the relation of the science of logic to all other sciences, and the science of logic deals with 34 The common forms of inference between the sciences, and the science of principles deals with the common forms of inference in jurisprudence. By analyzing the restrictions that we take in defining the science of assets, there are three restrictions: The first restriction: that the fundamental rules do not take a specific material from the fiqh subjects, I mean: a specific act of the taxpayers such as prayer, fasting, zakat, etc. (1), that is, they are not subject to any condition regarding these articles, just as logical rules are not taken in a specific article. It is a science subject, it does not talk about physical substances, mathematical numbers, medical drugs or anything else, but rather deals with the form of inference that applies in all these sciences. With this restriction, the pure linguistic rules come out, such as the meaning of the word “level” on the soil or the absolute face of the earth, because it only serves to derive a ruling for a verb added to the soil or the face of the earth, and it is not without a condition in terms of the specificity of the verbs, and issues of hadith science come out, I mean: Single narrations, for each narration of them shows a ruling specific to a specific act of verbs, and also comes out the jurisprudential inductive rules that are such as the rule: The evidence for the validity of the sale indicates the guarantee, for example, that it is specific to a specific material such as the article of sale, just as the rules of jurisprudence (2) ) which is from (1) What our professor al-Shahid (may God have mercy on him) reported in the discussion of the companionship from the previous session, that is: the first session is a more accurate expression than the expression mentioned here, which is: that the articles of jurisprudence that are not taken in the fundamental rules are every primary or secondary title related to a realistic ruling such as Upper Egypt. For example, which is a primary address, and like damage that is a secondary address. Refer to our book in the report of his research (may God have mercy on him), the fifth part of the second section, p. 25 according to the first edition according to the Ismailian Press and Binding. (2) It is also outside the second entry.

Chosen definition of etymology: As for the chosen definition of the science of principles, it is to say: The science of principles is the knowledge of the common rules of jurisprudential deductive analogy. And the clarification of this: that the attribution of the science of fundamentals to the science of jurisprudence is the same as the relation of the science of logic to all other sciences, and the science of logic deals with 34 The common forms of inference between the sciences, and the science of principles deals with the common forms of inference in jurisprudence. By analyzing the restrictions that we take in defining the science of assets, there are three restrictions: The first restriction: that the fundamental rules do not take a specific material from the fiqh subjects, I mean: a specific act of the taxpayers such as prayer, fasting, zakat, etc. (1), that is, they are not subject to any condition regarding these articles, just as logical rules are not taken in a specific article. It is a science subject, it does not talk about physical substances, mathematical numbers, medical drugs or anything else, but rather deals with the form of inference that applies in all these sciences. With this restriction, the pure linguistic rules come out, such as the meaning of the word “level” on the soil or the absolute face of the earth, because it only serves to derive a ruling for a verb added to the soil or the face of the earth, and it is not without a condition in terms of the specificity of the verbs, and issues of hadith science come out, I mean: Single narrations, for each narration of them shows a ruling specific to a specific act of verbs, and also comes out the jurisprudential inductive rules that are such as the rule: The evidence for the validity of the sale indicates the guarantee, for example, that it is specific to a specific material such as the article of sale, just as the rules of jurisprudence (2) ) which is from (1) What our professor al-Shahid (may God have mercy on him) reported in the discussion of the companionship from the previous session, that is: the first session is a more accurate expression than the expression mentioned here, which is: that the articles of jurisprudence that are not taken in the fundamental rules are every primary or secondary title related to a realistic ruling such as Upper Egypt. For example, which is a primary address, and like damage that is a secondary address. Refer to our book in the report of his research (may God have mercy on him), the fifth part of the second section, p. 25 according to the first edition according to the Ismailian Press and Binding. (2) It is also outside the second entry.

Chosen definition of etymology: As for the chosen definition of the science of principles, it is to say: The science of principles is the knowledge of the common rules of jurisprudential deductive analogy. And the clarification of this: that the attribution of the science of fundamentals to the science of jurisprudence is the same as the relation of the science of logic to all other sciences, and the science of logic deals with 34 The common forms of inference between the sciences, and the science of principles deals with the common forms of inference in jurisprudence. By analyzing the restrictions that we take in defining the science of assets, there are three restrictions: The first restriction: that the fundamental rules do not take a specific material from the fiqh subjects, I mean: a specific act of the taxpayers such as prayer, fasting, zakat, etc. (1), that is, they are not subject to any condition regarding these articles, just as logical rules are not taken in a specific article. It is a science subject, it does not talk about physical substances, mathematical numbers, medical drugs or anything else, but rather deals with the form of inference that applies in all these sciences. With this restriction, the pure linguistic rules come out, such as the meaning of the word “level” on the soil or the absolute face of the earth, because it only serves to derive a ruling for a verb added to the soil or the face of the earth, and it is not without a condition in terms of the specificity of the verbs, and issues of hadith science come out, I mean: Single narrations, for each narration of them shows a ruling specific to a specific act of verbs, and also comes out the jurisprudential inductive rules that are such as the rule: The evidence for the validity of the sale indicates the guarantee, for example, that it is specific to a specific material such as the article of sale, just as the rules of jurisprudence (2) ) which is from (1) What our professor al-Shahid (may God have mercy on him) reported in the discussion of the companionship from the previous session, that is: the first session is a more accurate expression than the expression mentioned here, which is: that the articles of jurisprudence that are not taken in the fundamental rules are every primary or secondary title related to a realistic ruling such as Upper Egypt. For example, which is a primary address, and like damage that is a secondary address. Refer to our book in the report of his research (may God have mercy on him), the fifth part of the second section, p. 25 according to the first edition according to the Ismailian Press and Binding. (2) It is also outside the second entry.

Chosen definition of etymology: As for the chosen definition of the science of principles, it is to say: The science of principles is the knowledge of the common rules of jurisprudential deductive analogy. And the clarification of this: that the attribution of the science of fundamentals to the science of jurisprudence is the same as the relation of the science of logic to all other sciences, and the science of logic deals with 34 The common forms of inference between the sciences, and the science of principles deals with the common forms of inference in jurisprudence. By analyzing the restrictions that we take in defining the science of assets, there are three restrictions: The first restriction: that the fundamental rules do not take a specific material from the fiqh subjects, I mean: a specific act of the taxpayers such as prayer, fasting, zakat, etc. (1), that is, they are not subject to any condition regarding these articles, just as logical rules are not taken in a specific article. It is a science subject, it does not talk about physical substances, mathematical numbers, medical drugs or anything else, but rather deals with the form of inference that applies in all these sciences. With this restriction, the pure linguistic rules come out, such as the meaning of the word “level” on the soil or the absolute face of the earth, because it only serves to derive a ruling for a verb added to the soil or the face of the earth, and it is not without a condition in terms of the specificity of the verbs, and issues of hadith science come out, I mean: Single narrations, for each narration of them shows a ruling specific to a specific act of verbs, and also comes out the jurisprudential inductive rules that are such as the rule: The evidence for the validity of the sale indicates the guarantee, for example, that it is specific to a specific material such as the article of sale, just as the rules of jurisprudence (2) ) which is from (1) What our professor al-Shahid (may God have mercy on him) reported in the discussion of the companionship from the previous session, that is: the first session is a more accurate expression than the expression mentioned here, which is: that the articles of jurisprudence that are not taken in the fundamental rules are every primary or secondary title related to a realistic ruling such as Upper Egypt. For example, which is a primary address, and like damage that is a secondary address. Refer to our book in the report of his research (may God have mercy on him), the fifth part of the second section, p. 25 according to the first edition according to the Ismailian Press and Binding. (2) It is also outside the second entry.

Chosen definition of etymology: As for the chosen definition of the science of principles, it is to say: The science of principles is the knowledge of the common rules of jurisprudential deductive analogy. And the clarification of this: that the attribution of the science of fundamentals to the science of jurisprudence is the same as the relation of the science of logic to all other sciences, and the science of logic deals with 34 The common forms of inference between the sciences, and the science of principles deals with the common forms of inference in jurisprudence. By analyzing the restrictions that we take in defining the science of assets, there are three restrictions: The first restriction: that the fundamental rules do not take a specific material from the fiqh subjects, I mean: a specific act of the taxpayers such as prayer, fasting, zakat, etc. (1), that is, they are not subject to any condition regarding these articles, just as logical rules are not taken in a specific article. It is a science subject, it does not talk about physical substances, mathematical numbers, medical drugs or anything else, but rather deals with the form of inference that applies in all these sciences. With this restriction, the pure linguistic rules come out, such as the meaning of the word “level” on the soil or the absolute face of the earth, because it only serves to derive a ruling for a verb added to the soil or the face of the earth, and it is not without a condition in terms of the specificity of the verbs, and issues of hadith science come out, I mean: Single narrations, for each narration of them shows a ruling specific to a specific act of verbs, and also comes out the jurisprudential inductive rules that are such as the rule: The evidence for the validity of the sale indicates the guarantee, for example, that it is specific to a specific material such as the article of sale, just as the rules of jurisprudence (2) ) which is from (1) What our professor al-Shahid (may God have mercy on him) reported in the discussion of the companionship from the previous session, that is: the first session is a more accurate expression than the expression mentioned here, which is: that the articles of jurisprudence that are not taken in the fundamental rules are every primary or secondary title related to a realistic ruling such as Upper Egypt. For example, which is a primary address, and like damage that is a secondary address. Refer to our book in the report of his research (may God have mercy on him), the fifth part of the second section, p. 25 according to the first edition according to the Ismailian Press and Binding. (2) It is also outside the second entry.

Chosen definition of etymology: As for the chosen definition of the science of principles, it is to say: The science of principles is the knowledge of the common rules of jurisprudential deductive analogy. And the clarification of this: that the attribution of the science of fundamentals to the science of jurisprudence is the same as the relation of the science of logic to all other sciences, and the science of logic deals with 34 The common forms of inference between the sciences, and the science of principles deals with the common forms of inference in jurisprudence. By analyzing the restrictions that we take in defining the science of assets, there are three restrictions: The first restriction: that the fundamental rules do not take a specific material from the fiqh subjects, I mean: a specific act of the taxpayers such as prayer, fasting, zakat, etc. (1), that is, they are not subject to any condition regarding these articles, just as logical rules are not taken in a specific article. It is a science subject, it does not talk about physical substances, mathematical numbers, medical drugs or anything else, but rather deals with the form of inference that applies in all these sciences. With this restriction, the pure linguistic rules come out, such as the meaning of the word “level” on the soil or the absolute face of the earth, because it only serves to derive a ruling for a verb added to the soil or the face of the earth, and it is not without a condition in terms of the specificity of the verbs, and issues of hadith science come out, I mean: Single narrations, for each narration of them shows a ruling specific to a specific act of verbs, and also comes out the jurisprudential inductive rules that are such as the rule: The evidence for the validity of the sale indicates the guarantee, for example, that it is specific to a specific material such as the article of sale, just as the rules of jurisprudence (2) ) which is from (1) What our professor al-Shahid (may God have mercy on him) reported in the discussion of the companionship from the previous session, that is: the first session is a more accurate expression than the expression mentioned here, which is: that the articles of jurisprudence that are not taken in the fundamental rules are every primary or secondary title related to a realistic ruling such as Upper Egypt. For example, which is a primary address, and like damage that is a secondary address. Refer to our book in the report of his research (may God have mercy on him), the fifth part of the second section, p. 25 according to the first edition according to the Ismailian Press and Binding. (2) It is also outside the second entry.

Chosen definition of etymology: As for the chosen definition of the science of principles, it is to say: The science of principles is the knowledge of the common rules of jurisprudential deductive analogy. And the clarification of this: that the attribution of the science of fundamentals to the science of jurisprudence is the same as the relation of the science of logic to all other sciences, and the science of logic deals with 34 The common forms of inference between the sciences, and the science of principles deals with the common forms of inference in jurisprudence. By analyzing the restrictions that we take in defining the science of assets, there are three restrictions: The first restriction: that the fundamental rules do not take a specific material from the fiqh subjects, I mean: a specific act of the taxpayers such as prayer, fasting, zakat, etc. (1), that is, they are not subject to any condition regarding these articles, just as logical rules are not taken in a specific article. It is a science subject, it does not talk about physical substances, mathematical numbers, medical drugs or anything else, but rather deals with the form of inference that applies in all these sciences. With this restriction, the pure linguistic rules come out, such as the meaning of the word “level” on the soil or the absolute face of the earth, because it only serves to derive a ruling for a verb added to the soil or the face of the earth, and it is not without a condition in terms of the specificity of the verbs, and issues of hadith science come out, I mean: Single narrations, for each narration of them shows a ruling specific to a specific act of verbs, and also comes out the jurisprudential inductive rules that are such as the rule: The evidence for the validity of the sale indicates the guarantee, for example, that it is specific to a specific material such as the article of sale, just as the rules of jurisprudence (2) ) which is from (1) What our professor al-Shahid (may God have mercy on him) reported in the discussion of the companionship from the previous session, that is: the first session is a more accurate expression than the expression mentioned here, which is: that the articles of jurisprudence that are not taken in the fundamental rules are every primary or secondary title related to a realistic ruling such as Upper Egypt. For example, which is a primary address, and like damage that is a secondary address. Refer to our book in the report of his research (may God have mercy on him), the fifth part of the second section, p. 25 according to the first edition according to the Ismailian Press and Binding. (2) It is also outside the second entry.

Chosen definition of etymology: As for the chosen definition of the science of principles, it is to say: The science of principles is the knowledge of the common rules of jurisprudential deductive analogy. And the clarification of this: that the attribution of the science of fundamentals to the science of jurisprudence is the same as the relation of the science of logic to all other sciences, and the science of logic deals with 34 The common forms of inference between the sciences, and the science of principles deals with the common forms of inference in jurisprudence. By analyzing the restrictions that we take in defining the science of assets, there are three restrictions: The first restriction: that the fundamental rules do not take a specific material from the fiqh subjects, I mean: a specific act of the taxpayers such as prayer, fasting, zakat, etc. (1), that is, they are not subject to any condition regarding these articles, just as logical rules are not taken in a specific article. It is a science subject, it does not talk about physical substances, mathematical numbers, medical drugs or anything else, but rather deals with the form of inference that applies in all these sciences. With this restriction, the pure linguistic rules come out, such as the meaning of the word “level” on the soil or the absolute face of the earth, because it only serves to derive a ruling for a verb added to the soil or the face of the earth, and it is not without a condition in terms of the specificity of the verbs, and issues of hadith science come out, I mean: Single narrations, for each narration of them shows a ruling specific to a specific act of verbs, and also comes out the jurisprudential inductive rules that are such as the rule: The evidence for the validity of the sale indicates the guarantee, for example, that it is specific to a specific material such as the article of sale, just as the rules of jurisprudence (2) ) which is from (1) What our professor al-Shahid (may God have mercy on him) reported in the discussion of the companionship from the previous session, that is: the first session is a more accurate expression than the expression mentioned here, which is: that the articles of jurisprudence that are not taken in the fundamental rules are every primary or secondary title related to a realistic ruling such as Upper Egypt. For example, which is a primary address, and like damage that is a secondary address. Refer to our book in the report of his research (may God have mercy on him), the fifth part of the second section, p. 25 according to the first edition according to the Ismailian Press and Binding. (2) It is also outside the second entry.

Chosen definition of etymology: As for the chosen definition of the science of principles, it is to say: The science of principles is the knowledge of the common rules of jurisprudential deductive analogy. And the clarification of this: that the attribution of the science of fundamentals to the science of jurisprudence is the same as the relation of the science of logic to all other sciences, and the science of logic deals with 34 The common forms of inference between the sciences, and the science of principles deals with the common forms of inference in jurisprudence. By analyzing the restrictions that we take in defining the science of assets, there are three restrictions: The first restriction: that the fundamental rules do not take a specific material from the fiqh subjects, I mean: a specific act of the taxpayers such as prayer, fasting, zakat, etc. (1), that is, they are not subject to any condition regarding these articles, just as logical rules are not taken in a specific article. It is a science subject, it does not talk about physical substances, mathematical numbers, medical drugs or anything else, but rather deals with the form of inference that applies in all these sciences. With this restriction, the pure linguistic rules come out, such as the meaning of the word “level” on the soil or the absolute face of the earth, because it only serves to derive a ruling for a verb added to the soil or the face of the earth, and it is not without a condition in terms of the specificity of the verbs, and issues of hadith science come out, I mean: Single narrations, for each narration of them shows a ruling specific to a specific act of verbs, and also comes out the jurisprudential inductive rules that are such as the rule: The evidence for the validity of the sale indicates the guarantee, for example, that it is specific to a specific material such as the article of sale, just as the rules of jurisprudence (2) ) which is from (1) What our professor al-Shahid (may God have mercy on him) reported in the discussion of the companionship from the previous session, that is: the first session is a more accurate expression than the expression mentioned here, which is: that the articles of jurisprudence that are not taken in the fundamental rules are every primary or secondary title related to a realistic ruling such as Upper Egypt. For example, which is a primary address, and like damage that is a secondary address. Refer to our book in the report of his research (may God have mercy on him), the fifth part of the second section, p. 25 according to the first edition according to the Ismailian Press and Binding. (2) It is also outside the second entry.

One of them is for the master, may his blessings last, and the second is for the Iraqi investigator (may his secret be sanctified).   Definition of the master of etymology: As for the definition of the master (may his blessings last) it is: that the fundamental rule is the one from which the ruling is derived by itself while achieving the two minor ones, i.e. without including another fundamental rule. There is a need to include another fundamentalist rule, and the emergence of the command in the necessity alone is sufficient after achieving the two minor ones - that is: the command - to deduce, without including another fundamental rule. This is in contrast to the trustworthiness of Zurara, for example, which is not sufficient to deduce unless the authoritative rule of trust is included in it, and unlike the meaning of the word “Said” on the soil, for example, or the absolute face of the earth, it is not sufficient in deducing the ruling unless we know that the matter is obligatory, the restriction of “no need.” to another fundamentalist principle.” The first accusation is removed from the definition (1). Then he presented himself with two objections: The first: that the revised fundamentalist researches of minor appearances, such as: the emergence of the command in the necessity, and the prohibition in the inviolability need another fundamental rule, which is the base of the proof of appearance. He replied to this that the principle of the authority of appearance is not fundamental; Because the authenticity of appearance   (1) See the lectures by al-Fayyad, part 43 of the Encyclopedia of Imam al-Khoei (may God have mercy on him), pp. 4, 9-10, and see studies, vol. 1, p. 24 according to the edition of the Institute of Islamic Jurisprudence Encyclopedia.

It is self-evident and clear to any customary person, and it does not need any fundamental research in that (1). The second: that the topic of the necessity of the command to forbid its opposite, its jurisprudential fruit is the invalidity of the opposite if it is worship if we say it is necessary, and this is suspended on another fundamentalist principle, which is: that the prohibition in worship requires invalidity. (1) I did not find this problem and the answer in the form of a problem and an answer, neither in lectures nor in studies. Yes, he declared in the lectures (c. 43 of the Imam al-Khoei’s Encyclopedia, p. 2) that the authority of appearance is outside the fundamental issues; As there is no disagreement about its authority between two wise men, and it has not been searched for in any science, even if the words fall into three sources, they are: The first: Is the proof of appearance conditional on not suspecting disagreement, or suspecting reconciliation, or neither this nor that? The second: In the apparent meanings of the book and whether it is an argument or not? The third: Is the validity of outward appearances specific to those he intends to understand, or does it extend to others as well? Close to that is what was mentioned in the studies (last page and last edition). Perhaps these two passages are a reference to what our professor, the martyr, narrated on the authority of his professor, Sayyid Al-Khoei (may God have mercy on them). Finally, I saw an explicit expression in the fact that Sayyid Al-Khoei’s (may God have mercy on him) mentioned the emergence of the authenticity of phenomena research on the science of origins in order to repel the confusion about the fundamentalism of the revised fundamental researches of minor appearances such as the appearance of the command in the necessity, in what was recently published from the book “Guidance in the Origins of a decision older than Al-Sayyid.” The author of the studies (may God have mercy on him), the late Sheikh Hassan Al-Safi Al-Isbahani, vol. 1, p. 21-22. He is explicit in that this is a refutation of that problem, clarifying: that the absence of dispute by anyone regarding the authenticity of the phenomena and the lack of doubt by anyone in that removes the problem despite the dispute over the authenticity of a number of appearances; This is because the fact that a proposition is sufficient to derive the divine universal judgment in the sentence is sufficient in its fundamentality, so we impose speech on commands and prohibitions within the certain amount of the authority of appearance, i.e. in the amount that no one doubts its authority.

It is self-evident and clear to any customary person, and it does not need any fundamental research in that (1). The second: that the topic of the necessity of the command to forbid its opposite, its jurisprudential fruit is the invalidity of the opposite if it is worship if we say it is necessary, and this is suspended on another fundamentalist principle, which is: that the prohibition in worship requires invalidity. (1) I did not find this problem and the answer in the form of a problem and an answer, neither in lectures nor in studies. Yes, he declared in the lectures (c. 43 of the Imam al-Khoei’s Encyclopedia, p. 2) that the authority of appearance is outside the fundamental issues; As there is no disagreement about its authority between two wise men, and it has not been searched for in any science, even if the words fall into three sources, they are: The first: Is the proof of appearance conditional on not suspecting disagreement, or suspecting reconciliation, or neither this nor that? The second: In the apparent meanings of the book and whether it is an argument or not? The third: Is the validity of outward appearances specific to those he intends to understand, or does it extend to others as well? Close to that is what was mentioned in the studies (last page and last edition). Perhaps these two passages are a reference to what our professor, the martyr, narrated on the authority of his professor, Sayyid Al-Khoei (may God have mercy on them). Finally, I saw an explicit expression in the fact that Sayyid Al-Khoei’s (may God have mercy on him) mentioned the emergence of the authenticity of phenomena research on the science of origins in order to repel the confusion about the fundamentalism of the revised fundamental researches of minor appearances such as the appearance of the command in the necessity, in what was recently published from the book “Guidance in the Origins of a decision older than Al-Sayyid.” The author of the studies (may God have mercy on him), the late Sheikh Hassan Al-Safi Al-Isbahani, vol. 1, p. 21-22. He is explicit in that this is a refutation of that problem, clarifying: that the absence of dispute by anyone regarding the authenticity of the phenomena and the lack of doubt by anyone in that removes the problem despite the dispute over the authenticity of a number of appearances; This is because the fact that a proposition is sufficient to derive the divine universal judgment in the sentence is sufficient in its fundamentality, so we impose speech on commands and prohibitions within the certain amount of the authority of appearance, i.e. in the amount that no one doubts its authority.

It is self-evident and clear to any customary person, and it does not need any fundamental research in that (1). The second: that the topic of the necessity of the command to forbid its opposite, its jurisprudential fruit is the invalidity of the opposite if it is worship if we say it is necessary, and this is suspended on another fundamentalist principle, which is: that the prohibition in worship requires invalidity. (1) I did not find this problem and the answer in the form of a problem and an answer, neither in lectures nor in studies. Yes, he declared in the lectures (c. 43 of the Imam al-Khoei’s Encyclopedia, p. 2) that the authority of appearance is outside the fundamental issues; As there is no disagreement about its authority between two wise men, and it has not been searched for in any science, even if the words fall into three sources, they are: The first: Is the proof of appearance conditional on not suspecting disagreement, or suspecting reconciliation, or neither this nor that? The second: In the apparent meanings of the book and whether it is an argument or not? The third: Is the validity of outward appearances specific to those he intends to understand, or does it extend to others as well? Close to that is what was mentioned in the studies (last page and last edition). Perhaps these two passages are a reference to what our professor, the martyr, narrated on the authority of his professor, Sayyid Al-Khoei (may God have mercy on them). Finally, I saw an explicit expression in the fact that Sayyid Al-Khoei’s (may God have mercy on him) mentioned the emergence of the authenticity of phenomena research on the science of origins in order to repel the confusion about the fundamentalism of the revised fundamental researches of minor appearances such as the appearance of the command in the necessity, in what was recently published from the book “Guidance in the Origins of a decision older than Al-Sayyid.” The author of the studies (may God have mercy on him), the late Sheikh Hassan Al-Safi Al-Isbahani, vol. 1, p. 21-22. He is explicit in that this is a refutation of that problem, clarifying: that the absence of dispute by anyone regarding the authenticity of the phenomena and the lack of doubt by anyone in that removes the problem despite the dispute over the authenticity of a number of appearances; This is because the fact that a proposition is sufficient to derive the divine universal judgment in the sentence is sufficient in its fundamentality, so we impose speech on commands and prohibitions within the certain amount of the authority of appearance, i.e. in the amount that no one doubts its authority.

It is self-evident and clear to any customary person, and it does not need any fundamental research in that (1). The second: that the topic of the necessity of the command to forbid its opposite, its jurisprudential fruit is the invalidity of the opposite if it is worship if we say it is necessary, and this is suspended on another fundamentalist principle, which is: that the prohibition in worship requires invalidity. (1) I did not find this problem and the answer in the form of a problem and an answer, neither in lectures nor in studies. Yes, he declared in the lectures (c. 43 of the Imam al-Khoei’s Encyclopedia, p. 2) that the authority of appearance is outside the fundamental issues; As there is no disagreement about its authority between two wise men, and it has not been searched for in any science, even if the words fall into three sources, they are: The first: Is the proof of appearance conditional on not suspecting disagreement, or suspecting reconciliation, or neither this nor that? The second: In the apparent meanings of the book and whether it is an argument or not? The third: Is the validity of outward appearances specific to those he intends to understand, or does it extend to others as well? Close to that is what was mentioned in the studies (last page and last edition). Perhaps these two passages are a reference to what our professor, the martyr, narrated on the authority of his professor, Sayyid Al-Khoei (may God have mercy on them). Finally, I saw an explicit expression in the fact that Sayyid Al-Khoei’s (may God have mercy on him) mentioned the emergence of the authenticity of phenomena research on the science of origins in order to repel the confusion about the fundamentalism of the revised fundamental researches of minor appearances such as the appearance of the command in the necessity, in what was recently published from the book “Guidance in the Origins of a decision older than Al-Sayyid.” The author of the studies (may God have mercy on him), the late Sheikh Hassan Al-Safi Al-Isbahani, vol. 1, p. 21-22. He is explicit in that this is a refutation of that problem, clarifying: that the absence of dispute by anyone regarding the authenticity of the phenomena and the lack of doubt by anyone in that removes the problem despite the dispute over the authenticity of a number of appearances; This is because the fact that a proposition is sufficient to derive the divine universal judgment in the sentence is sufficient in its fundamentality, so we impose speech on commands and prohibitions within the certain amount of the authority of appearance, i.e. in the amount that no one doubts its authority.

It is self-evident and clear to any customary person, and it does not need any fundamental research in that (1). The second: that the topic of the necessity of the command to forbid its opposite, its jurisprudential fruit is the invalidity of the opposite if it is worship if we say it is necessary, and this is suspended on another fundamentalist principle, which is: that the prohibition in worship requires invalidity. (1) I did not find this problem and the answer in the form of a problem and an answer, neither in lectures nor in studies. Yes, he declared in the lectures (c. 43 of the Imam al-Khoei’s Encyclopedia, p. 2) that the authority of appearance is outside the fundamental issues; As there is no disagreement about its authority between two wise men, and it has not been searched for in any science, even if the words fall into three sources, they are: The first: Is the proof of appearance conditional on not suspecting disagreement, or suspecting reconciliation, or neither this nor that? The second: In the apparent meanings of the book and whether it is an argument or not? The third: Is the validity of outward appearances specific to those he intends to understand, or does it extend to others as well? Close to that is what was mentioned in the studies (last page and last edition). Perhaps these two passages are a reference to what our professor, the martyr, narrated on the authority of his professor, Sayyid Al-Khoei (may God have mercy on them). Finally, I saw an explicit expression in the fact that Sayyid Al-Khoei’s (may God have mercy on him) mentioned the emergence of the authenticity of phenomena research on the science of origins in order to repel the confusion about the fundamentalism of the revised fundamental researches of minor appearances such as the appearance of the command in the necessity, in what was recently published from the book “Guidance in the Origins of a decision older than Al-Sayyid.” The author of the studies (may God have mercy on him), the late Sheikh Hassan Al-Safi Al-Isbahani, vol. 1, p. 21-22. He is explicit in that this is a refutation of that problem, clarifying: that the absence of dispute by anyone regarding the authenticity of the phenomena and the lack of doubt by anyone in that removes the problem despite the dispute over the authenticity of a number of appearances; This is because the fact that a proposition is sufficient to derive the divine universal judgment in the sentence is sufficient in its fundamentality, so we impose speech on commands and prohibitions within the certain amount of the authority of appearance, i.e. in the amount that no one doubts its authority.

It is self-evident and clear to any customary person, and it does not need any fundamental research in that (1). The second: that the topic of the necessity of the command to forbid its opposite, its jurisprudential fruit is the invalidity of the opposite if it is worship if we say it is necessary, and this is suspended on another fundamentalist principle, which is: that the prohibition in worship requires invalidity. (1) I did not find this problem and the answer in the form of a problem and an answer, neither in lectures nor in studies. Yes, he declared in the lectures (c. 43 of the Imam al-Khoei’s Encyclopedia, p. 2) that the authority of appearance is outside the fundamental issues; As there is no disagreement about its authority between two wise men, and it has not been searched for in any science, even if the words fall into three sources, they are: The first: Is the proof of appearance conditional on not suspecting disagreement, or suspecting reconciliation, or neither this nor that? The second: In the apparent meanings of the book and whether it is an argument or not? The third: Is the validity of outward appearances specific to those he intends to understand, or does it extend to others as well? Close to that is what was mentioned in the studies (last page and last edition). Perhaps these two passages are a reference to what our professor, the martyr, narrated on the authority of his professor, Sayyid Al-Khoei (may God have mercy on them). Finally, I saw an explicit expression in the fact that Sayyid Al-Khoei’s (may God have mercy on him) mentioned the emergence of the authenticity of phenomena research on the science of origins in order to repel the confusion about the fundamentalism of the revised fundamental researches of minor appearances such as the appearance of the command in the necessity, in what was recently published from the book “Guidance in the Origins of a decision older than Al-Sayyid.” The author of the studies (may God have mercy on him), the late Sheikh Hassan Al-Safi Al-Isbahani, vol. 1, p. 21-22. He is explicit in that this is a refutation of that problem, clarifying: that the absence of dispute by anyone regarding the authenticity of the phenomena and the lack of doubt by anyone in that removes the problem despite the dispute over the authenticity of a number of appearances; This is because the fact that a proposition is sufficient to derive the divine universal judgment in the sentence is sufficient in its fundamentality, so we impose speech on commands and prohibitions within the certain amount of the authority of appearance, i.e. in the amount that no one doubts its authority.

It is self-evident and clear to any customary person, and it does not need any fundamental research in that (1). The second: that the topic of the necessity of the command to forbid its opposite, its jurisprudential fruit is the invalidity of the opposite if it is worship if we say it is necessary, and this is suspended on another fundamentalist principle, which is: that the prohibition in worship requires invalidity. (1) I did not find this problem and the answer in the form of a problem and an answer, neither in lectures nor in studies. Yes, he declared in the lectures (c. 43 of the Imam al-Khoei’s Encyclopedia, p. 2) that the authority of appearance is outside the fundamental issues; As there is no disagreement about its authority between two wise men, and it has not been searched for in any science, even if the words fall into three sources, they are: The first: Is the proof of appearance conditional on not suspecting disagreement, or suspecting reconciliation, or neither this nor that? The second: In the apparent meanings of the book and whether it is an argument or not? The third: Is the validity of outward appearances specific to those he intends to understand, or does it extend to others as well? Close to that is what was mentioned in the studies (last page and last edition). Perhaps these two passages are a reference to what our professor, the martyr, narrated on the authority of his professor, Sayyid Al-Khoei (may God have mercy on them). Finally, I saw an explicit expression in the fact that Sayyid Al-Khoei’s (may God have mercy on him) mentioned the emergence of the authenticity of phenomena research on the science of origins in order to repel the confusion about the fundamentalism of the revised fundamental researches of minor appearances such as the appearance of the command in the necessity, in what was recently published from the book “Guidance in the Origins of a decision older than Al-Sayyid.” The author of the studies (may God have mercy on him), the late Sheikh Hassan Al-Safi Al-Isbahani, vol. 1, p. 21-22. He is explicit in that this is a refutation of that problem, clarifying: that the absence of dispute by anyone regarding the authenticity of the phenomena and the lack of doubt by anyone in that removes the problem despite the dispute over the authenticity of a number of appearances; This is because the fact that a proposition is sufficient to derive the divine universal judgment in the sentence is sufficient in its fundamentality, so we impose speech on commands and prohibitions within the certain amount of the authority of appearance, i.e. in the amount that no one doubts its authority.

It is self-evident and clear to any customary person, and it does not need any fundamental research in that (1). The second: that the topic of the necessity of the command to forbid its opposite, its jurisprudential fruit is the invalidity of the opposite if it is worship if we say it is necessary, and this is suspended on another fundamentalist principle, which is: that the prohibition in worship requires invalidity. (1) I did not find this problem and the answer in the form of a problem and an answer, neither in lectures nor in studies. Yes, he declared in the lectures (c. 43 of the Imam al-Khoei’s Encyclopedia, p. 2) that the authority of appearance is outside the fundamental issues; As there is no disagreement about its authority between two wise men, and it has not been searched for in any science, even if the words fall into three sources, they are: The first: Is the proof of appearance conditional on not suspecting disagreement, or suspecting reconciliation, or neither this nor that? The second: In the apparent meanings of the book and whether it is an argument or not? The third: Is the validity of outward appearances specific to those he intends to understand, or does it extend to others as well? Close to that is what was mentioned in the studies (last page and last edition). Perhaps these two passages are a reference to what our professor, the martyr, narrated on the authority of his professor, Sayyid Al-Khoei (may God have mercy on them). Finally, I saw an explicit expression in the fact that Sayyid Al-Khoei’s (may God have mercy on him) mentioned the emergence of the authenticity of phenomena research on the science of origins in order to repel the confusion about the fundamentalism of the revised fundamental researches of minor appearances such as the appearance of the command in the necessity, in what was recently published from the book “Guidance in the Origins of a decision older than Al-Sayyid.” The author of the studies (may God have mercy on him), the late Sheikh Hassan Al-Safi Al-Isbahani, vol. 1, p. 21-22. He is explicit in that this is a refutation of that problem, clarifying: that the absence of dispute by anyone regarding the authenticity of the phenomena and the lack of doubt by anyone in that removes the problem despite the dispute over the authenticity of a number of appearances; This is because the fact that a proposition is sufficient to derive the divine universal judgment in the sentence is sufficient in its fundamentality, so we impose speech on commands and prohibitions within the certain amount of the authority of appearance, i.e. in the amount that no one doubts its authority.

Definition of the Iraqi investigator for etymology: As for the definition of the Iraqi investigator (may his secret sanctify) (and he (sanctifying his secret) focused on repelling the first blame), he (may God have mercy on him) mentioned: that a fundamental rule is an extraneous rule in deduction in a way that the same rule becomes when a jurisprudential ruling is deduced from it that is subject to the ruling or how it relates to its subject Looking at that, for example, the rule for the signification of the command over the obligation is to establish the obligation, while the reliability of the narrator or the appearance of the word “the level” are not subject to the rule from the beginning, even if we use them in the place of deducing the rule, and therefore if we lose sight of the world of rulings, there is no meaning Because we say: (The command indicates that it is obligatory); As obligatory is a ruling from   (1) We may say: It is sufficient in the fundamentalism of the rule to derive from it the universal divine judgment, even without excusing or excusing, and the rule (the command of something requires the prohibition of its opposite, or does not require) a rule from which deduces the prohibition or inviolability of the opposite, and it is a divine total judgment . Or it may be said: It suffices in its fundamentality to produce it on some buildings, and this rule results from a building.

rulings, but there remains a meaning for our saying: (Al-Sa’id means “the face of the earth” or “Zurara is trustworthy” (1). Then it may be said: This definition does not include such as the research of concepts, or the absolute and the restricted, or the general and the particular, but he (sanctify his secret) was exposed in the articles to push this delusion with a statement: that these researches are about how the judgment relates to the subject (2), and a distinction between These researches and derivative research, as derivative research does not fall under the definition, and therefore it is not from fundamental research (3), and since its phrase in the articles is closed, it is as if some of them did not pay attention to the meaning, and that is why it was questioned that we did not understand the difference between these researches and the derivative research that It is outside the science of etymology, for the derivation’s research also talks about the limits of the subject. Is it specific to the one who actually possesses the principle or is it more general than that, for example? And the clarification of his intention (may his secret be sanctified) is: that the fundamental rule, when it has an effect on the ruling, is subject to the directness of the ruling or to the specificity of the ruling, and the study of the significance of the condition on the concept, for example, has an effect on the ruling when the penalty is one of the rulings, and the rule at that time is subject to the specificity of the ruling. judgment; As it is exposed to the fact that the penalty - which is the ruling according to the imposition - is restricted by the limits of the condition circle, and that it is negated by the absence of the condition, and this is in contrast to the search for an individual meaning such as the word "level", as it does not speak of a specificity in the ruling, but rather talks about the individual meaning of the level that is not a judgment in Sometimes the search for it is intrusive in deducing the ruling, and also the discussion of the absolute when it affects the ruling, i.e. when it is applied. (1) Al-Maqarat, vol. 1, p. 54, according to the edition of the Islamic Thought Academy. (2) The same source and page. (3) The same source, p. 55.

rulings, but there remains a meaning for our saying: (Al-Sa’id means “the face of the earth” or “Zurara is trustworthy” (1). Then it may be said: This definition does not include such as the research of concepts, or the absolute and the restricted, or the general and the particular, but he (sanctify his secret) was exposed in the articles to push this delusion with a statement: that these researches are about how the judgment relates to the subject (2), and a distinction between These researches and derivative research, as derivative research does not fall under the definition, and therefore it is not from fundamental research (3), and since its phrase in the articles is closed, it is as if some of them did not pay attention to the meaning, and that is why it was questioned that we did not understand the difference between these researches and the derivative research that It is outside the science of etymology, for the derivation’s research also talks about the limits of the subject. Is it specific to the one who actually possesses the principle or is it more general than that, for example? And the clarification of his intention (may his secret be sanctified) is: that the fundamental rule, when it has an effect on the ruling, is subject to the directness of the ruling or to the specificity of the ruling, and the study of the significance of the condition on the concept, for example, has an effect on the ruling when the penalty is one of the rulings, and the rule at that time is subject to the specificity of the ruling. judgment; As it is exposed to the fact that the penalty - which is the ruling according to the imposition - is restricted by the limits of the condition circle, and that it is negated by the absence of the condition, and this is in contrast to the search for an individual meaning such as the word "level", as it does not speak of a specificity in the ruling, but rather talks about the individual meaning of the level that is not a judgment in Sometimes the search for it is intrusive in deducing the ruling, and also the discussion of the absolute when it affects the ruling, i.e. when it is applied. (1) Al-Maqarat, vol. 1, p. 54, according to the edition of the Islamic Thought Academy. (2) The same source and page. (3) The same source, p. 55.

rulings, but there remains a meaning for our saying: (Al-Sa’id means “the face of the earth” or “Zurara is trustworthy” (1). Then it may be said: This definition does not include such as the research of concepts, or the absolute and the restricted, or the general and the particular, but he (sanctify his secret) was exposed in the articles to push this delusion with a statement: that these researches are about how the judgment relates to the subject (2), and a distinction between These researches and derivative research, as derivative research does not fall under the definition, and therefore it is not from fundamental research (3), and since its phrase in the articles is closed, it is as if some of them did not pay attention to the meaning, and that is why it was questioned that we did not understand the difference between these researches and the derivative research that It is outside the science of etymology, for the derivation’s research also talks about the limits of the subject. Is it specific to the one who actually possesses the principle or is it more general than that, for example? And the clarification of his intention (may his secret be sanctified) is: that the fundamental rule, when it has an effect on the ruling, is subject to the directness of the ruling or to the specificity of the ruling, and the study of the significance of the condition on the concept, for example, has an effect on the ruling when the penalty is one of the rulings, and the rule at that time is subject to the specificity of the ruling. judgment; As it is exposed to the fact that the penalty - which is the ruling according to the imposition - is restricted by the limits of the condition circle, and that it is negated by the absence of the condition, and this is in contrast to the search for an individual meaning such as the word "level", as it does not speak of a specificity in the ruling, but rather talks about the individual meaning of the level that is not a judgment in Sometimes the search for it is intrusive in deducing the ruling, and also the discussion of the absolute when it affects the ruling, i.e. when it is applied. (1) Al-Maqarat, vol. 1, p. 54, according to the edition of the Islamic Thought Academy. (2) The same source and page. (3) The same source, p. 55.

rulings, but there remains a meaning for our saying: (Al-Sa’id means “the face of the earth” or “Zurara is trustworthy” (1). Then it may be said: This definition does not include such as the research of concepts, or the absolute and the restricted, or the general and the particular, but he (sanctify his secret) was exposed in the articles to push this delusion with a statement: that these researches are about how the judgment relates to the subject (2), and a distinction between These researches and derivative research, as derivative research does not fall under the definition, and therefore it is not from fundamental research (3), and since its phrase in the articles is closed, it is as if some of them did not pay attention to the meaning, and that is why it was questioned that we did not understand the difference between these researches and the derivative research that It is outside the science of etymology, for the derivation’s research also talks about the limits of the subject. Is it specific to the one who actually possesses the principle or is it more general than that, for example? And the clarification of his intention (may his secret be sanctified) is: that the fundamental rule, when it has an effect on the ruling, is subject to the directness of the ruling or to the specificity of the ruling, and the study of the significance of the condition on the concept, for example, has an effect on the ruling when the penalty is one of the rulings, and the rule at that time is subject to the specificity of the ruling. judgment; As it is exposed to the fact that the penalty - which is the ruling according to the imposition - is restricted by the limits of the condition circle, and that it is negated by the absence of the condition, and this is in contrast to the search for an individual meaning such as the word "level", as it does not speak of a specificity in the ruling, but rather talks about the individual meaning of the level that is not a judgment in Sometimes the search for it is intrusive in deducing the ruling, and also the discussion of the absolute when it affects the ruling, i.e. when it is applied. (1) Al-Maqarat, vol. 1, p. 54, according to the edition of the Islamic Thought Academy. (2) The same source and page. (3) The same source, p. 55.

rulings, but there remains a meaning for our saying: (Al-Sa’id means “the face of the earth” or “Zurara is trustworthy” (1). Then it may be said: This definition does not include such as the research of concepts, or the absolute and the restricted, or the general and the particular, but he (sanctify his secret) was exposed in the articles to push this delusion with a statement: that these researches are about how the judgment relates to the subject (2), and a distinction between These researches and derivative research, as derivative research does not fall under the definition, and therefore it is not from fundamental research (3), and since its phrase in the articles is closed, it is as if some of them did not pay attention to the meaning, and that is why it was questioned that we did not understand the difference between these researches and the derivative research that It is outside the science of etymology, for the derivation’s research also talks about the limits of the subject. Is it specific to the one who actually possesses the principle or is it more general than that, for example? And the clarification of his intention (may his secret be sanctified) is: that the fundamental rule, when it has an effect on the ruling, is subject to the directness of the ruling or to the specificity of the ruling, and the study of the significance of the condition on the concept, for example, has an effect on the ruling when the penalty is one of the rulings, and the rule at that time is subject to the specificity of the ruling. judgment; As it is exposed to the fact that the penalty - which is the ruling according to the imposition - is restricted by the limits of the condition circle, and that it is negated by the absence of the condition, and this is in contrast to the search for an individual meaning such as the word "level", as it does not speak of a specificity in the ruling, but rather talks about the individual meaning of the level that is not a judgment in Sometimes the search for it is intrusive in deducing the ruling, and also the discussion of the absolute when it affects the ruling, i.e. when it is applied. (1) Al-Maqarat, vol. 1, p. 54, according to the edition of the Islamic Thought Academy. (2) The same source and page. (3) The same source, p. 55.

rulings, but there remains a meaning for our saying: (Al-Sa’id means “the face of the earth” or “Zurara is trustworthy” (1). Then it may be said: This definition does not include such as the research of concepts, or the absolute and the restricted, or the general and the particular, but he (sanctify his secret) was exposed in the articles to push this delusion with a statement: that these researches are about how the judgment relates to the subject (2), and a distinction between These researches and derivative research, as derivative research does not fall under the definition, and therefore it is not from fundamental research (3), and since its phrase in the articles is closed, it is as if some of them did not pay attention to the meaning, and that is why it was questioned that we did not understand the difference between these researches and the derivative research that It is outside the science of etymology, for the derivation’s research also talks about the limits of the subject. Is it specific to the one who actually possesses the principle or is it more general than that, for example? And the clarification of his intention (may his secret be sanctified) is: that the fundamental rule, when it has an effect on the ruling, is subject to the directness of the ruling or to the specificity of the ruling, and the study of the significance of the condition on the concept, for example, has an effect on the ruling when the penalty is one of the rulings, and the rule at that time is subject to the specificity of the ruling. judgment; As it is exposed to the fact that the penalty - which is the ruling according to the imposition - is restricted by the limits of the condition circle, and that it is negated by the absence of the condition, and this is in contrast to the search for an individual meaning such as the word "level", as it does not speak of a specificity in the ruling, but rather talks about the individual meaning of the level that is not a judgment in Sometimes the search for it is intrusive in deducing the ruling, and also the discussion of the absolute when it affects the ruling, i.e. when it is applied. (1) Al-Maqarat, vol. 1, p. 54, according to the edition of the Islamic Thought Academy. (2) The same source and page. (3) The same source, p. 55.