Definition of the master of etymology

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.