The main definition of etymology
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