Vocabulary
section One
Vocabulary
○ Introduction.
○ Command.
○ Prohibited.
○ Concepts.
○ public and private.
○ Absolute and Restricted.
○ Overall and shown.
Introduction
○ Introducing the science of origins.
○ Mode.
○ Denotes figurative meaning.
○ Evidence-based release.
○ Confusion that occurs in the subordination of the semantic to the will.
○ How to place the components.
○ Signs of truth and metaphor.
○ The legal truth.
○ correct and general.
○ Subscribe.
○ Derivative.
Introduction
1
Introduction to etymology
○ Definition of etymology.
○ The subject of etymology.
○ Division of Fundamental Research.
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.
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.
Division of Fundamental Research
The third side - in the division of the investigations of etymology:
The master (may his blessings last) mentioned that the rules of etiquette are divided into four sections:
1 - The rules that lead to the emotional knowledge of the confirmation of the ruling, which are the searches for requirements such as the correlation between the necessity of a thing and the necessity of its premise, or the prohibition of its opposite.
2 - The rules that require devotional knowledge of the ruling, under which two types fall:
The first: What is to be researched about the smallest argument, such as the indication of the command to be obligatory, the prohibition of prohibition, and the emergence of the specific general in the completion of the rest.
The second: What is to be researched about the major authenticity, such as the authoritativeness of the appearance of the book, fame, or the news of a single person, and so on.
3- The rules that determine the legal practical functions to which the jurist returns after failing to perform the first two categories, such as the legal innocence and the legal precaution.
4- The practical and rational principles that the jurist concludes with after failing to meet the third category
Also, as a rule, “the ugliness of punishment without explanation” and the originality of mental work (1).
I say: We envisage the division for two reasons:
The first note: It notes the ranks of the process of deduction by saying: The process of deduction has longitudinal hierarchies that do not reach each other with mastery of what preceded it. , And so on.
If the professor (may his blessings last) look at this point, as perhaps it is apparent from his words, he replied to him:
First: The process of deduction is not in order between the first two sections based on what is well-known and well-known, that the authority of the emirates is not conditional on the blockage of the door of knowledge. Yes, this first problem is not rejected if what is meant is order, not with the observation of what we mentioned from the process of deduction that includes examination, but with the observation of actually reaching some levels, because with reaching emotional knowledge the Nuba does not reach devotional knowledge.
And secondly: that if the longitudinal arrangement of the ranks of the process of deduction is noticeable, then the devotional sciences that made a second category must be made of ranks as well. Because some of them depend on others, for example, devotion on the side of significance with the definitiveness of the bond takes precedence over worship with the bond we have and with the master, his blessings continued.
And thirdly: that the companionship is in the length of the principalities, and before the principles, so why was it made with it?
(1) The Lectures of Sheikh Al-Fayyad, part 1, pp. 6-8, according to the third edition of Dar Al-Hadi in Qom, as well as part 43 of the Encyclopedia of Imam Al-Khoei, pp. 1-4.
Also, as a rule, “the ugliness of punishment without explanation” and the originality of mental work (1).
I say: We envisage the division for two reasons:
The first note: It notes the ranks of the process of deduction by saying: The process of deduction has longitudinal hierarchies that do not reach each other with mastery of what preceded it. , And so on.
If the professor (may his blessings last) look at this point, as perhaps it is apparent from his words, he replied to him:
First: The process of deduction is not in order between the first two sections based on what is well-known and well-known, that the authority of the emirates is not conditional on the blockage of the door of knowledge. Yes, this first problem is not rejected if what is meant is order, not with the observation of what we mentioned from the process of deduction that includes examination, but with the observation of actually reaching some levels, because with reaching emotional knowledge the Nuba does not reach devotional knowledge.
And secondly: that if the longitudinal arrangement of the ranks of the process of deduction is noticeable, then the devotional sciences that made a second category must be made of ranks as well. Because some of them depend on others, for example, devotion on the side of significance with the definitiveness of the bond takes precedence over worship with the bond we have and with the master, his blessings continued.
And thirdly: that the companionship is in the length of the principalities, and before the principles, so why was it made with it?
(1) The Lectures of Sheikh Al-Fayyad, part 1, pp. 6-8, according to the third edition of Dar Al-Hadi in Qom, as well as part 43 of the Encyclopedia of Imam Al-Khoei, pp. 1-4.
Also, as a rule, “the ugliness of punishment without explanation” and the originality of mental work (1).
I say: We envisage the division for two reasons:
The first note: It notes the ranks of the process of deduction by saying: The process of deduction has longitudinal hierarchies that do not reach each other with mastery of what preceded it. , And so on.
If the professor (may his blessings last) look at this point, as perhaps it is apparent from his words, he replied to him:
First: The process of deduction is not in order between the first two sections based on what is well-known and well-known, that the authority of the emirates is not conditional on the blockage of the door of knowledge. Yes, this first problem is not rejected if what is meant is order, not with the observation of what we mentioned from the process of deduction that includes examination, but with the observation of actually reaching some levels, because with reaching emotional knowledge the Nuba does not reach devotional knowledge.
And secondly: that if the longitudinal arrangement of the ranks of the process of deduction is noticeable, then the devotional sciences that made a second category must be made of ranks as well. Because some of them depend on others, for example, devotion on the side of significance with the definitiveness of the bond takes precedence over worship with the bond we have and with the master, his blessings continued.
And thirdly: that the companionship is in the length of the principalities, and before the principles, so why was it made with it?
(1) The Lectures of Sheikh Al-Fayyad, part 1, pp. 6-8, according to the third edition of Dar Al-Hadi in Qom, as well as part 43 of the Encyclopedia of Imam Al-Khoei, pp. 1-4.
The subject of etymology
The second side - on the subject of etymology:
The companions presented him with matters, and they searched for things that were taken from what the sages and philosophers say, while some of what they mentioned does not have an eye or trace in the words of the wise and philosophers.
We also here - according to them - are talking about three things in response to the request of some loved ones, although we see that there is no point in these researches:
The first: that every science has a subject.
The second: that science searches for the subjective symptoms of the subject.
The third: the meaning of subjective symptoms.
Diagnosing the subject of etymology
As for the subject of Principles, the ancients mentioned that it is the four proofs by what they are, or by what they are.
Latecomers discussed both sides. The conclusion of the discussions: that the subject of science should be applicable to the topics of its issues. And both of these two aspects of defining the subject do not have this joke, so you see that the subject of practical principles is doubt, and doubt is not included in the four evidences, and research on requirements such as the study of the corollary between the necessity of a thing and the necessity of its premise is the assignment, and the assignment is not among the corroboration of the four evidences, so all The subject of these researches is not included in the subject of theology according to this definition on both sides. As for the issues of arguments, some of them do not apply to either of the two aspects either, such as the issue of the authority of fame, for fame is not one of the corroboration of the four proofs, and some of them do not apply to the first aspect and the second aspect applies to it, such as the authoritativeness of the appearances of the book, for example. It is necessary to leave this research on the science of origins; Because the evidence and its authoritativeness were taken as a part or a restriction in the subject, so it must be taken for granted in science, and the subject of science is not searched in the same science, even if the subject is the evidence as it is, that would be applicable to this research; Because the phenomena of the book are included in the book. As for the authenticity of a single report, it may be said that it is outside of both aspects. Because the news of a single person is not a book, nor reason, nor consensus, nor Sunnah. Because the Sunnah is the same as the infallible’s saying, action, and approval, not the narration that relates to it, and it may be said: it is outside the first aspect only; Because searching in it is for the evidence of the evidence, but the second aspect applies to it; And that is with the blessing of one of the cares they mention, perhaps the easiest of which is to expand the scope of the Sunnah for the narrative story.
So it turns out: that the science of Usul is based on these two aspects of defining its subject, and many of its researches depart from it. Yes, it may include vocabularies, such as the meaning of the imperative form of the imperative, if it is assumed that the subject of the issue of the signification of the command over the obligation, for example, is the command
In the Book and the Sunnah, the title of the Four Evidences applies to it.
And for the sake of these problems, some argue that the science of principles does not have a specific subject, and some argue that its subject is something vague, which we refer to by a general title as a title that applies to the topics of its issues. requirement.
The clarification of the absence of these problems is to clarify several things, most of which are mentioned:
The first: that the balance in the subject of science is not the extraction of the topics of the issue according to its codification, otherwise it would not apply to high philosophy as well, but the balance is the extraction of the spirit of science according to what was previously explained.
The second: that science, although it searches for the symptoms of the subject, but it is not intended that the ratio of the subject to the predicates is the ratio of the subject to the accident, rather what is meant: the presentations with the notes of origin and follow, in the search for light, for example, he talks about its effects and results, even if they are not fixed conditions for the same light. 1). This, too, has become clear from the foregoing.
(1) It is not hidden: that the talk about the effects of light and its results is only considered a talk about light and a science whose subject is light when what is noticeable in the hadith is the meaning of the origin of the light for it, and this structure is transposed to the light, the presentations of the show on the place.
It is true: that subjectivity is intended to arise, not that the relation of the subject to the predicate is the ratio of the subject to the contingency, but the origin of the assumption that the relation of the subject to the predicate is the relation of the subject to the continuum must be taken for granted, and subjectivity is added to it in the sense of origination, otherwise the four evidences would be a subject of jurisprudence as well. It also imposed a subject of etiquette; Because it is also a source for issues of jurisprudence.
In the Book and the Sunnah, the title of the Four Evidences applies to it.
And for the sake of these problems, some argue that the science of principles does not have a specific subject, and some argue that its subject is something vague, which we refer to by a general title as a title that applies to the topics of its issues. requirement.
The clarification of the absence of these problems is to clarify several things, most of which are mentioned:
The first: that the balance in the subject of science is not the extraction of the topics of the issue according to its codification, otherwise it would not apply to high philosophy as well, but the balance is the extraction of the spirit of science according to what was previously explained.
The second: that science, although it searches for the symptoms of the subject, but it is not intended that the ratio of the subject to the predicates is the ratio of the subject to the accident, rather what is meant: the presentations with the notes of origin and follow, in the search for light, for example, he talks about its effects and results, even if they are not fixed conditions for the same light. 1). This, too, has become clear from the foregoing.
(1) It is not hidden: that the talk about the effects of light and its results is only considered a talk about light and a science whose subject is light when what is noticeable in the hadith is the meaning of the origin of the light for it, and this structure is transposed to the light, the presentations of the show on the place.
It is true: that subjectivity is intended to arise, not that the relation of the subject to the predicate is the ratio of the subject to the contingency, but the origin of the assumption that the relation of the subject to the predicate is the relation of the subject to the continuum must be taken for granted, and subjectivity is added to it in the sense of origination, otherwise the four evidences would be a subject of jurisprudence as well. It also imposed a subject of etiquette; Because it is also a source for issues of jurisprudence.
In the Book and the Sunnah, the title of the Four Evidences applies to it.
And for the sake of these problems, some argue that the science of principles does not have a specific subject, and some argue that its subject is something vague, which we refer to by a general title as a title that applies to the topics of its issues. requirement.
The clarification of the absence of these problems is to clarify several things, most of which are mentioned:
The first: that the balance in the subject of science is not the extraction of the topics of the issue according to its codification, otherwise it would not apply to high philosophy as well, but the balance is the extraction of the spirit of science according to what was previously explained.
The second: that science, although it searches for the symptoms of the subject, but it is not intended that the ratio of the subject to the predicates is the ratio of the subject to the accident, rather what is meant: the presentations with the notes of origin and follow, in the search for light, for example, he talks about its effects and results, even if they are not fixed conditions for the same light. 1). This, too, has become clear from the foregoing.
(1) It is not hidden: that the talk about the effects of light and its results is only considered a talk about light and a science whose subject is light when what is noticeable in the hadith is the meaning of the origin of the light for it, and this structure is transposed to the light, the presentations of the show on the place.
It is true: that subjectivity is intended to arise, not that the relation of the subject to the predicate is the ratio of the subject to the contingency, but the origin of the assumption that the relation of the subject to the predicate is the relation of the subject to the continuum must be taken for granted, and subjectivity is added to it in the sense of origination, otherwise the four evidences would be a subject of jurisprudence as well. It also imposed a subject of etiquette; Because it is also a source for issues of jurisprudence.
Does every science have a subject?
The first: Should every science be distinguished by a specific subject, or not? It was said: Yes, every science must have a subject, and it may prove that. On the other hand, sometimes it is said: There is no proof
On the necessity of having a specific subject for every science, and another that is said: there is evidence to the contrary:
Sometimes we are talking here about the proof that there is a specific topic for every science, and at other times about the proof that it is not necessary.
As for the first statement, which is: is there proof of the necessity of having a specific subject for every science or not? This was proved by a combination of two premises:
The first: the philosophical rule that says: (The one does not emanate from but one) after believing that just as giving charity in the one with the person, then it only comes from one with the person.
The second: Every science has one objective in its kind.
Therefore, this single purpose resulting from the dispersed issues reveals the existence of a true collector between them, which is the subject of science.
And the realization of the speech in the second introduction is: that it should not be intended from a single purpose that results from issues of knowledge to be the purpose at the level of codification and lesson; It is clear that the purposes differ according to different people, so we may see a person whose purpose is not related to the codification or study of a particular science except to a small amount of it, and we may see a person whose purpose is attached to more than that, and another person whose purpose is linked to complete knowledge, and the purpose may be a sang of a purpose. It can only be achieved by studying many sciences, such as the purpose of acquiring ijtihad, for example, as there is no single common goal between all the issues of science until it reveals the unity of the subject.
It is necessary that what is meant by the purpose is the effect on the same knowledge that is established in
On the necessity of having a specific subject for every science, and another that is said: there is evidence to the contrary:
Sometimes we are talking here about the proof that there is a specific topic for every science, and at other times about the proof that it is not necessary.
As for the first statement, which is: is there proof of the necessity of having a specific subject for every science or not? This was proved by a combination of two premises:
The first: the philosophical rule that says: (The one does not emanate from but one) after believing that just as giving charity in the one with the person, then it only comes from one with the person.
The second: Every science has one objective in its kind.
Therefore, this single purpose resulting from the dispersed issues reveals the existence of a true collector between them, which is the subject of science.
And the realization of the speech in the second introduction is: that it should not be intended from a single purpose that results from issues of knowledge to be the purpose at the level of codification and lesson; It is clear that the purposes differ according to different people, so we may see a person whose purpose is not related to the codification or study of a particular science except to a small amount of it, and we may see a person whose purpose is attached to more than that, and another person whose purpose is linked to complete knowledge, and the purpose may be a sang of a purpose. It can only be achieved by studying many sciences, such as the purpose of acquiring ijtihad, for example, as there is no single common goal between all the issues of science until it reveals the unity of the subject.
It is necessary that what is meant by the purpose is the effect on the same knowledge that is established in
On the necessity of having a specific subject for every science, and another that is said: there is evidence to the contrary:
Sometimes we are talking here about the proof that there is a specific topic for every science, and at other times about the proof that it is not necessary.
As for the first statement, which is: is there proof of the necessity of having a specific subject for every science or not? This was proved by a combination of two premises:
The first: the philosophical rule that says: (The one does not emanate from but one) after believing that just as giving charity in the one with the person, then it only comes from one with the person.
The second: Every science has one objective in its kind.
Therefore, this single purpose resulting from the dispersed issues reveals the existence of a true collector between them, which is the subject of science.
And the realization of the speech in the second introduction is: that it should not be intended from a single purpose that results from issues of knowledge to be the purpose at the level of codification and lesson; It is clear that the purposes differ according to different people, so we may see a person whose purpose is not related to the codification or study of a particular science except to a small amount of it, and we may see a person whose purpose is attached to more than that, and another person whose purpose is linked to complete knowledge, and the purpose may be a sang of a purpose. It can only be achieved by studying many sciences, such as the purpose of acquiring ijtihad, for example, as there is no single common goal between all the issues of science until it reveals the unity of the subject.
It is necessary that what is meant by the purpose is the effect on the same knowledge that is established in
On the necessity of having a specific subject for every science, and another that is said: there is evidence to the contrary:
Sometimes we are talking here about the proof that there is a specific topic for every science, and at other times about the proof that it is not necessary.
As for the first statement, which is: is there proof of the necessity of having a specific subject for every science or not? This was proved by a combination of two premises:
The first: the philosophical rule that says: (The one does not emanate from but one) after believing that just as giving charity in the one with the person, then it only comes from one with the person.
The second: Every science has one objective in its kind.
Therefore, this single purpose resulting from the dispersed issues reveals the existence of a true collector between them, which is the subject of science.
And the realization of the speech in the second introduction is: that it should not be intended from a single purpose that results from issues of knowledge to be the purpose at the level of codification and lesson; It is clear that the purposes differ according to different people, so we may see a person whose purpose is not related to the codification or study of a particular science except to a small amount of it, and we may see a person whose purpose is attached to more than that, and another person whose purpose is linked to complete knowledge, and the purpose may be a sang of a purpose. It can only be achieved by studying many sciences, such as the purpose of acquiring ijtihad, for example, as there is no single common goal between all the issues of science until it reveals the unity of the subject.
It is necessary that what is meant by the purpose is the effect on the same knowledge that is established in
On the necessity of having a specific subject for every science, and another that is said: there is evidence to the contrary:
Sometimes we are talking here about the proof that there is a specific topic for every science, and at other times about the proof that it is not necessary.
As for the first statement, which is: is there proof of the necessity of having a specific subject for every science or not? This was proved by a combination of two premises:
The first: the philosophical rule that says: (The one does not emanate from but one) after believing that just as giving charity in the one with the person, then it only comes from one with the person.
The second: Every science has one objective in its kind.
Therefore, this single purpose resulting from the dispersed issues reveals the existence of a true collector between them, which is the subject of science.
And the realization of the speech in the second introduction is: that it should not be intended from a single purpose that results from issues of knowledge to be the purpose at the level of codification and lesson; It is clear that the purposes differ according to different people, so we may see a person whose purpose is not related to the codification or study of a particular science except to a small amount of it, and we may see a person whose purpose is attached to more than that, and another person whose purpose is linked to complete knowledge, and the purpose may be a sang of a purpose. It can only be achieved by studying many sciences, such as the purpose of acquiring ijtihad, for example, as there is no single common goal between all the issues of science until it reveals the unity of the subject.
It is necessary that what is meant by the purpose is the effect on the same knowledge that is established in
On the necessity of having a specific subject for every science, and another that is said: there is evidence to the contrary:
Sometimes we are talking here about the proof that there is a specific topic for every science, and at other times about the proof that it is not necessary.
As for the first statement, which is: is there proof of the necessity of having a specific subject for every science or not? This was proved by a combination of two premises:
The first: the philosophical rule that says: (The one does not emanate from but one) after believing that just as giving charity in the one with the person, then it only comes from one with the person.
The second: Every science has one objective in its kind.
Therefore, this single purpose resulting from the dispersed issues reveals the existence of a true collector between them, which is the subject of science.
And the realization of the speech in the second introduction is: that it should not be intended from a single purpose that results from issues of knowledge to be the purpose at the level of codification and lesson; It is clear that the purposes differ according to different people, so we may see a person whose purpose is not related to the codification or study of a particular science except to a small amount of it, and we may see a person whose purpose is attached to more than that, and another person whose purpose is linked to complete knowledge, and the purpose may be a sang of a purpose. It can only be achieved by studying many sciences, such as the purpose of acquiring ijtihad, for example, as there is no single common goal between all the issues of science until it reveals the unity of the subject.
It is necessary that what is meant by the purpose is the effect on the same knowledge that is established in
On the necessity of having a specific subject for every science, and another that is said: there is evidence to the contrary:
Sometimes we are talking here about the proof that there is a specific topic for every science, and at other times about the proof that it is not necessary.
As for the first statement, which is: is there proof of the necessity of having a specific subject for every science or not? This was proved by a combination of two premises:
The first: the philosophical rule that says: (The one does not emanate from but one) after believing that just as giving charity in the one with the person, then it only comes from one with the person.
The second: Every science has one objective in its kind.
Therefore, this single purpose resulting from the dispersed issues reveals the existence of a true collector between them, which is the subject of science.
And the realization of the speech in the second introduction is: that it should not be intended from a single purpose that results from issues of knowledge to be the purpose at the level of codification and lesson; It is clear that the purposes differ according to different people, so we may see a person whose purpose is not related to the codification or study of a particular science except to a small amount of it, and we may see a person whose purpose is attached to more than that, and another person whose purpose is linked to complete knowledge, and the purpose may be a sang of a purpose. It can only be achieved by studying many sciences, such as the purpose of acquiring ijtihad, for example, as there is no single common goal between all the issues of science until it reveals the unity of the subject.
It is necessary that what is meant by the purpose is the effect on the same knowledge that is established in
On the necessity of having a specific subject for every science, and another that is said: there is evidence to the contrary:
Sometimes we are talking here about the proof that there is a specific topic for every science, and at other times about the proof that it is not necessary.
As for the first statement, which is: is there proof of the necessity of having a specific subject for every science or not? This was proved by a combination of two premises:
The first: the philosophical rule that says: (The one does not emanate from but one) after believing that just as giving charity in the one with the person, then it only comes from one with the person.
The second: Every science has one objective in its kind.
Therefore, this single purpose resulting from the dispersed issues reveals the existence of a true collector between them, which is the subject of science.
And the realization of the speech in the second introduction is: that it should not be intended from a single purpose that results from issues of knowledge to be the purpose at the level of codification and lesson; It is clear that the purposes differ according to different people, so we may see a person whose purpose is not related to the codification or study of a particular science except to a small amount of it, and we may see a person whose purpose is attached to more than that, and another person whose purpose is linked to complete knowledge, and the purpose may be a sang of a purpose. It can only be achieved by studying many sciences, such as the purpose of acquiring ijtihad, for example, as there is no single common goal between all the issues of science until it reveals the unity of the subject.
It is necessary that what is meant by the purpose is the effect on the same knowledge that is established in
On the necessity of having a specific subject for every science, and another that is said: there is evidence to the contrary:
Sometimes we are talking here about the proof that there is a specific topic for every science, and at other times about the proof that it is not necessary.
As for the first statement, which is: is there proof of the necessity of having a specific subject for every science or not? This was proved by a combination of two premises:
The first: the philosophical rule that says: (The one does not emanate from but one) after believing that just as giving charity in the one with the person, then it only comes from one with the person.
The second: Every science has one objective in its kind.
Therefore, this single purpose resulting from the dispersed issues reveals the existence of a true collector between them, which is the subject of science.
And the realization of the speech in the second introduction is: that it should not be intended from a single purpose that results from issues of knowledge to be the purpose at the level of codification and lesson; It is clear that the purposes differ according to different people, so we may see a person whose purpose is not related to the codification or study of a particular science except to a small amount of it, and we may see a person whose purpose is attached to more than that, and another person whose purpose is linked to complete knowledge, and the purpose may be a sang of a purpose. It can only be achieved by studying many sciences, such as the purpose of acquiring ijtihad, for example, as there is no single common goal between all the issues of science until it reveals the unity of the subject.
It is necessary that what is meant by the purpose is the effect on the same knowledge that is established in
In that: the locus is not a complete cause of the presentation until it ensues, for the wooden one, for example, is not sufficient to realize the clinical so that the clinical is subjective to it. Yes, it may be agreed that a substance is a substance whose imposition is in line with the imposition of the subject and the end, as is the substance of a plant to which symptoms of growth, nature of nutrition, life and death are exposed. This is because the agent has no shortcomings in it like the end, but rather awaits the preparation of the material, for the material entails the continuity for the completeness of the rest of the causes.
The third: The final cause, when the rest of the causes are devoid of proof, inevitably entails the end, so although the end is on the one hand the cause of the end, but on the other hand it is considered a cause and an origin for the end, and on this basis it is correct that the subject of knowledge is an end, and knowledge is Searching for its causes, such as the science of medicine, where its subject is health, and it searches for human states, movements and forces present in the human body, etc., as it imposes health as an end for all of these matters, and the philosophers have argued that whenever there is something, it needs a cause. Finality, not that the final cause is related to the imposition of choice in action. The final cause of actions, forces, and movements in the body is health, so health is a subject of medical science, in which it talks about its causes, premises and prohibitions as well.
This is all the talk in the first point, and according to the truth, jokes about solving the problem appeared in the second and third point as well.
And after their intent has become clear, their words can be directed with a statement: that knowledge of the predicate of the subject is of two types:
The first: that it be mere knowledge of proof without knowledge of necessity and the impossibility of non-existence, such as knowledge of Zayd’s poverty with the possibility of his wealth, and this knowledge for them is not demonstrative, and it is subject to demise; Because proof is not necessary, and if proof is not necessary, it can be questioned.
The second: It is the knowledge of proof based on necessity and the impossibility of nothingness, such as the knowledge that the angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles, and this is demonstrative knowledge according to them. It is clear that the affirmation of the predicate of the subject by necessity is only in the subjective predicate in the sense that we have explained from the subjective, for the predicate is subjective and necessary to the subject if the subject is the origin of the predicate without an intermediary, or it is the origin of the middle and the middle is the origin of the predicate, so the confusion for them at this point arises From neglecting the sum of what we mentioned from the two introductions.
And after their intent has become clear, their words can be directed with a statement: that knowledge of the predicate of the subject is of two types:
The first: that it be mere knowledge of proof without knowledge of necessity and the impossibility of non-existence, such as knowledge of Zayd’s poverty with the possibility of his wealth, and this knowledge for them is not demonstrative, and it is subject to demise; Because proof is not necessary, and if proof is not necessary, it can be questioned.
The second: It is the knowledge of proof based on necessity and the impossibility of nothingness, such as the knowledge that the angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles, and this is demonstrative knowledge according to them. It is clear that the affirmation of the predicate of the subject by necessity is only in the subjective predicate in the sense that we have explained from the subjective, for the predicate is subjective and necessary to the subject if the subject is the origin of the predicate without an intermediary, or it is the origin of the middle and the middle is the origin of the predicate, so the confusion for them at this point arises From neglecting the sum of what we mentioned from the two introductions.
And after their intent has become clear, their words can be directed with a statement: that knowledge of the predicate of the subject is of two types:
The first: that it be mere knowledge of proof without knowledge of necessity and the impossibility of non-existence, such as knowledge of Zayd’s poverty with the possibility of his wealth, and this knowledge for them is not demonstrative, and it is subject to demise; Because proof is not necessary, and if proof is not necessary, it can be questioned.
The second: It is the knowledge of proof based on necessity and the impossibility of nothingness, such as the knowledge that the angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles, and this is demonstrative knowledge according to them. It is clear that the affirmation of the predicate of the subject by necessity is only in the subjective predicate in the sense that we have explained from the subjective, for the predicate is subjective and necessary to the subject if the subject is the origin of the predicate without an intermediary, or it is the origin of the middle and the middle is the origin of the predicate, so the confusion for them at this point arises From neglecting the sum of what we mentioned from the two introductions.
The meaning of the subjective viewer:
As for the first point: is it correct what was mentioned in the definition of the subjective symptom, or not?
The Iraqi investigator (may his secret sanctify) and others discussed about that, but we restrict ourselves to mentioning the words of the Iraqi investigator (may his secret sanctify) (1), which is the most pleasant of what was reported in the case, then we discuss it, and we say:
The Iraqi investigator has stated in the Maqam: that the symptom: is either subjective, meaning the subjective mentioned in the Book of Colleges, i.e.: gender, season, or type (2), or an external necessary that does not need a cause like heat in relation to fire, or an external that needs an intermediary. And on the third: either that intermediary is a reasoning reasoning, i.e.: it is not the one that is presented for the offer, but rather it is a reason for the offers of the offer (3) on the one presented, or a restrictive one, that is: it is the one that is actually presented for the presentation. The first three sections must be recognized as being subjective; As it is presented to the subject in reality, as for the first, it is fixed to the thing with the highest levels of affirmation, because it is one of its essences, and as for the second, it is fixed for the thing that is necessary for it, and there is no mediation between it and the thing presented, and as for the third, it is also present in reality on the thing; Because the intermediary is only a causal means, and in that it does not differentiate between what they mentioned of the categories of intermediary being different, specific, equal, internal or external, or more general internally or externally.
(1) See the articles, part 1, p. 5-7 according to the edition of the Scientific Press in Najaf. As for the edition of the Academy of Islamic Thought in Qom, see: Part 1, pg. 39-47, and Nihayat al-Afkar, Part 1, pg. 13-17.
(2) If we take the appendix of the term mentioned in the Book of Colleges, the meaning here is broader than that; It includes subjects other than gender, separation, and gender, as represented by the Iraqi investigator (may God have mercy on him) in Al-Abyadiya and Al-Mujuwdiyyah, stripped of whiteness and existence.
In summary: the criterion is that the display is extracted from the station of the same thing, whether that thing is a genus, a class, or a species, or it is not.
(3) Like the proximity of the fire that causes heat to show on the water. See Nihat al-Afkar, vol. 1, p. 13, and articles, vol. 1, p. 40, according to the edition of the Islamic Thought Academy.
The Iraqi Muhaqiq (may his secret be sanctified) (1) who is the most pleasant of what has been reported in this regard, then we discuss it, and we say:
The Iraqi investigator has stated in the Maqam: that the symptom: is either subjective, meaning the subjective mentioned in the Book of Colleges, i.e.: gender, season, or type (2), or an external necessary that does not need a cause like heat in relation to fire, or an external that needs an intermediary. And on the third: either that intermediary is a reasoning reasoning, i.e.: it is not the one that is presented for the offer, but rather it is a reason for the offers of the offer (3) on the one presented, or a restrictive one, that is: it is the one that is actually presented for the presentation. The first three sections must be recognized as being subjective; As it is presented to the subject in reality, as for the first, it is fixed to the thing with the highest levels of affirmation, because it is one of its essences, and as for the second, it is fixed for the thing that is necessary for it, and there is no mediation between it and the thing presented, and as for the third, it is also present in reality on the thing; Because the intermediary is only a causal means, and in that it does not differentiate between what they mentioned of the categories of intermediary being different, specific, equal, internal or external, or more general internally or externally.
(1) See the articles, part 1, p. 5-7 according to the edition of the Scientific Press in Najaf. As for the edition of the Academy of Islamic Thought in Qom, see: Part 1, pg. 39-47, and Nihayat al-Afkar, Part 1, pg. 13-17.
(2) If we take the appendix of the term mentioned in the Book of Colleges, the meaning here is broader than that; It includes subjects other than gender, separation, and gender, as represented by the Iraqi investigator (may God have mercy on him) in Al-Abyadiya and Al-Mujuwdiyyah, stripped of whiteness and existence.
In summary: the criterion is that the display is extracted from the station of the same thing, whether that thing is a genus, a class, or a species, or it is not.
(3) Like the proximity of the fire that causes heat to show on the water. See Nihat al-Afkar, vol. 1, p. 13, and articles, vol. 1, p. 40, according to the edition of the Islamic Thought Academy.
The Iraqi Muhaqiq (may his secret be sanctified) (1) who is the most pleasant of what has been reported in this regard, then we discuss it, and we say:
The Iraqi investigator has stated in the Maqam: that the symptom: is either subjective, meaning the subjective mentioned in the Book of Colleges, i.e.: gender, season, or type (2), or an external necessary that does not need a cause like heat in relation to fire, or an external that needs an intermediary. And on the third: either that intermediary is a reasoning reasoning, i.e.: it is not the one that is presented for the offer, but rather it is a reason for the offers of the offer (3) on the one presented, or a restrictive one, that is: it is the one that is actually presented for the presentation. The first three sections must be recognized as being subjective; As it is presented to the subject in reality, as for the first, it is fixed to the thing with the highest levels of affirmation, because it is one of its essences, and as for the second, it is fixed for the thing that is necessary for it, and there is no mediation between it and the thing presented, and as for the third, it is also present in reality on the thing; Because the intermediary is only a causal means, and in that it does not differentiate between what they mentioned of the categories of intermediary being different, specific, equal, internal or external, or more general internally or externally.
(1) See the articles, part 1, p. 5-7 according to the edition of the Scientific Press in Najaf. As for the edition of the Academy of Islamic Thought in Qom, see: Part 1, pg. 39-47, and Nihayat al-Afkar, Part 1, pg. 13-17.
(2) If we take the appendix of the term mentioned in the Book of Colleges, the meaning here is broader than that; It includes subjects other than gender, separation, and gender, as represented by the Iraqi investigator (may God have mercy on him) in Al-Abyadiya and Al-Mujuwdiyyah, stripped of whiteness and existence.
In summary: the criterion is that the display is extracted from the station of the same thing, whether that thing is a genus, a class, or a species, or it is not.
(3) Like the proximity of the fire that causes heat to show on the water. See Nihat al-Afkar, vol. 1, p. 13, and articles, vol. 1, p. 40, according to the edition of the Islamic Thought Academy.
The Iraqi Muhaqiq (may his secret be sanctified) (1) who is the most pleasant of what has been reported in this regard, then we discuss it, and we say:
The Iraqi investigator has stated in the Maqam: that the symptom: is either subjective, meaning the subjective mentioned in the Book of Colleges, i.e.: gender, season, or type (2), or an external necessary that does not need a cause like heat in relation to fire, or an external that needs an intermediary. And on the third: either that intermediary is a reasoning reasoning, i.e.: it is not the one that is presented for the offer, but rather it is a reason for the offers of the offer (3) on the one presented, or a restrictive one, that is: it is the one that is actually presented for the presentation. The first three sections must be recognized as being subjective; As it is presented to the subject in reality, as for the first, it is fixed to the thing with the highest levels of affirmation, because it is one of its essences, and as for the second, it is fixed for the thing that is necessary for it, and there is no mediation between it and the thing presented, and as for the third, it is also present in reality on the thing; Because the intermediary is only a causal means, and in that it does not differentiate between what they mentioned of the categories of intermediary being different, specific, equal, internal or external, or more general internally or externally.
(1) See the articles, part 1, p. 5-7 according to the edition of the Scientific Press in Najaf. As for the edition of the Academy of Islamic Thought in Qom, see: Part 1, pg. 39-47, and Nihayat al-Afkar, Part 1, pg. 13-17.
(2) If we take the appendix of the term mentioned in the Book of Colleges, the meaning here is broader than that; It includes subjects other than gender, separation, and gender, as represented by the Iraqi investigator (may God have mercy on him) in Al-Abyadiya and Al-Mujuwdiyyah, stripped of whiteness and existence.
In summary: the criterion is that the display is extracted from the station of the same thing, whether that thing is a genus, a class, or a species, or it is not.
(3) Like the proximity of the fire that causes heat to show on the water. See Nihat al-Afkar, vol. 1, p. 13, and articles, vol. 1, p. 40, according to the edition of the Islamic Thought Academy.
The Iraqi Muhaqiq (may his secret be sanctified) (1) who is the most pleasant of what has been reported in this regard, then we discuss it, and we say:
The Iraqi investigator has stated in the Maqam: that the symptom: is either subjective, meaning the subjective mentioned in the Book of Colleges, i.e.: gender, season, or type (2), or an external necessary that does not need a cause like heat in relation to fire, or an external that needs an intermediary. And on the third: either that intermediary is a reasoning reasoning, i.e.: it is not the one that is presented for the offer, but rather it is a reason for the offers of the offer (3) on the one presented, or a restrictive one, that is: it is the one that is actually presented for the presentation. The first three sections must be recognized as being subjective; As it is presented to the subject in reality, as for the first, it is fixed to the thing with the highest levels of affirmation, because it is one of its essences, and as for the second, it is fixed for the thing that is necessary for it, and there is no mediation between it and the thing presented, and as for the third, it is also present in reality on the thing; Because the intermediary is only a causal means, and in that it does not differentiate between what they mentioned of the categories of intermediary being different, specific, equal, internal or external, or more general internally or externally.
(1) See the articles, part 1, p. 5-7 according to the edition of the Scientific Press in Najaf. As for the edition of the Academy of Islamic Thought in Qom, see: Part 1, pg. 39-47, and Nihayat al-Afkar, Part 1, pg. 13-17.
(2) If we take the appendix of the term mentioned in the Book of Colleges, the meaning here is broader than that; It includes subjects other than gender, separation, and gender, as represented by the Iraqi investigator (may God have mercy on him) in Al-Abyadiya and Al-Mujuwdiyyah, stripped of whiteness and existence.
In summary: the criterion is that the display is extracted from the station of the same thing, whether that thing is a genus, a class, or a species, or it is not.
(3) Like the proximity of the fire that causes heat to show on the water. See Nihat al-Afkar, vol. 1, p. 13, and articles, vol. 1, p. 40, according to the edition of the Islamic Thought Academy.
The Iraqi Muhaqiq (may his secret be sanctified) (1) who is the most pleasant of what has been reported in this regard, then we discuss it, and we say:
The Iraqi investigator has stated in the Maqam: that the symptom: is either subjective, meaning the subjective mentioned in the Book of Colleges, i.e.: gender, season, or type (2), or an external necessary that does not need a cause like heat in relation to fire, or an external that needs an intermediary. And on the third: either that intermediary is a reasoning reasoning, i.e.: it is not the one that is presented for the offer, but rather it is a reason for the offers of the offer (3) on the one presented, or a restrictive one, that is: it is the one that is actually presented for the presentation. The first three sections must be recognized as being subjective; As it is presented to the subject in reality, as for the first, it is fixed to the thing with the highest levels of affirmation, because it is one of its essences, and as for the second, it is fixed for the thing that is necessary for it, and there is no mediation between it and the thing presented, and as for the third, it is also present in reality on the thing; Because the intermediary is only a causal means, and in that it does not differentiate between what they mentioned of the categories of intermediary being different, specific, equal, internal or external, or more general internally or externally.
(1) See the articles, part 1, p. 5-7 according to the edition of the Scientific Press in Najaf. As for the edition of the Academy of Islamic Thought in Qom, see: Part 1, pg. 39-47, and Nihayat al-Afkar, Part 1, pg. 13-17.
(2) If we take the appendix of the term mentioned in the Book of Colleges, the meaning here is broader than that; It includes subjects other than gender, separation, and gender, as represented by the Iraqi investigator (may God have mercy on him) in Al-Abyadiya and Al-Mujuwdiyyah, stripped of whiteness and existence.
In summary: the criterion is that the display is extracted from the station of the same thing, whether that thing is a genus, a class, or a species, or it is not.
(3) Like the proximity of the fire that causes heat to show on the water. See Nihat al-Afkar, vol. 1, p. 13, and articles, vol. 1, p. 40, according to the edition of the Islamic Thought Academy.
The Iraqi Muhaqiq (may his secret be sanctified) (1) who is the most pleasant of what has been reported in this regard, then we discuss it, and we say:
The Iraqi investigator has stated in the Maqam: that the symptom: is either subjective, meaning the subjective mentioned in the Book of Colleges, i.e.: gender, season, or type (2), or an external necessary that does not need a cause like heat in relation to fire, or an external that needs an intermediary. And on the third: either that intermediary is a reasoning reasoning, i.e.: it is not the one that is presented for the offer, but rather it is a reason for the offers of the offer (3) on the one presented, or a restrictive one, that is: it is the one that is actually presented for the presentation. The first three sections must be recognized as being subjective; As it is presented to the subject in reality, as for the first, it is fixed to the thing with the highest levels of affirmation, because it is one of its essences, and as for the second, it is fixed for the thing that is necessary for it, and there is no mediation between it and the thing presented, and as for the third, it is also present in reality on the thing; Because the intermediary is only a causal means, and in that it does not differentiate between what they mentioned of the categories of intermediary being different, specific, equal, internal or external, or more general internally or externally.
(1) See the articles, part 1, p. 5-7 according to the edition of the Scientific Press in Najaf. As for the edition of the Academy of Islamic Thought in Qom, see: Part 1, pg. 39-47, and Nihayat al-Afkar, Part 1, pg. 13-17.
(2) If we take the appendix of the term mentioned in the Book of Colleges, the meaning here is broader than that; It includes subjects other than gender, separation, and gender, as represented by the Iraqi investigator (may God have mercy on him) in Al-Abyadiya and Al-Mujuwdiyyah, stripped of whiteness and existence.
In summary: the criterion is that the display is extracted from the station of the same thing, whether that thing is a genus, a class, or a species, or it is not.
(3) Like the proximity of the fire that causes heat to show on the water. See Nihat al-Afkar, vol. 1, p. 13, and articles, vol. 1, p. 40, according to the edition of the Islamic Thought Academy.
The Iraqi Muhaqiq (may his secret be sanctified) (1) who is the most pleasant of what has been reported in this regard, then we discuss it, and we say:
The Iraqi investigator has stated in the Maqam: that the symptom: is either subjective, meaning the subjective mentioned in the Book of Colleges, i.e.: gender, season, or type (2), or an external necessary that does not need a cause like heat in relation to fire, or an external that needs an intermediary. And on the third: either that intermediary is a reasoning reasoning, i.e.: it is not the one that is presented for the offer, but rather it is a reason for the offers of the offer (3) on the one presented, or a restrictive one, that is: it is the one that is actually presented for the presentation. The first three sections must be recognized as being subjective; As it is presented to the subject in reality, as for the first, it is fixed to the thing with the highest levels of affirmation, because it is one of its essences, and as for the second, it is fixed for the thing that is necessary for it, and there is no mediation between it and the thing presented, and as for the third, it is also present in reality on the thing; Because the intermediary is only a causal means, and in that it does not differentiate between what they mentioned of the categories of intermediary being different, specific, equal, internal or external, or more general internally or externally.
(1) See the articles, part 1, p. 5-7 according to the edition of the Scientific Press in Najaf. As for the edition of the Academy of Islamic Thought in Qom, see: Part 1, pg. 39-47, and Nihayat al-Afkar, Part 1, pg. 13-17.
(2) If we take the appendix of the term mentioned in the Book of Colleges, the meaning here is broader than that; It includes subjects other than gender, separation, and gender, as represented by the Iraqi investigator (may God have mercy on him) in Al-Abyadiya and Al-Mujuwdiyyah, stripped of whiteness and existence.
In summary: the criterion is that the display is extracted from the station of the same thing, whether that thing is a genus, a class, or a species, or it is not.
(3) Like the proximity of the fire that causes heat to show on the water. See Nihat al-Afkar, vol. 1, p. 13, and articles, vol. 1, p. 40, according to the edition of the Islamic Thought Academy.
The Iraqi Muhaqiq (may his secret be sanctified) (1) who is the most pleasant of what has been reported in this regard, then we discuss it, and we say:
The Iraqi investigator has stated in the Maqam: that the symptom: is either subjective, meaning the subjective mentioned in the Book of Colleges, i.e.: gender, season, or type (2), or an external necessary that does not need a cause like heat in relation to fire, or an external that needs an intermediary. And on the third: either that intermediary is a reasoning reasoning, i.e.: it is not the one that is presented for the offer, but rather it is a reason for the offers of the offer (3) on the one presented, or a restrictive one, that is: it is the one that is actually presented for the presentation. The first three sections must be recognized as being subjective; As it is presented to the subject in reality, as for the first, it is fixed to the thing with the highest levels of affirmation, because it is one of its essences, and as for the second, it is fixed for the thing that is necessary for it, and there is no mediation between it and the thing presented, and as for the third, it is also present in reality on the thing; Because the intermediary is only a causal means, and in that it does not differentiate between what they mentioned of the categories of intermediary being different, specific, equal, internal or external, or more general internally or externally.
(1) See the articles, part 1, p. 5-7 according to the edition of the Scientific Press in Najaf. As for the edition of the Academy of Islamic Thought in Qom, see: Part 1, pg. 39-47, and Nihayat al-Afkar, Part 1, pg. 13-17.
(2) If we take the appendix of the term mentioned in the Book of Colleges, the meaning here is broader than that; It includes subjects other than gender, separation, and gender, as represented by the Iraqi investigator (may God have mercy on him) in Al-Abyadiya and Al-Mujuwdiyyah, stripped of whiteness and existence.
In summary: the criterion is that the display is extracted from the station of the same thing, whether that thing is a genus, a class, or a species, or it is not.
(3) Like the proximity of the fire that causes heat to show on the water. See Nihat al-Afkar, vol. 1, p. 13, and articles, vol. 1, p. 40, according to the edition of the Islamic Thought Academy.
- The Iraqi Muhaqiq (may his secret be sanctified) (1) who is the most pleasant of what has been reported in this regard, then we discuss it, and we say: The Iraqi investigator has stated in the Maqam: that the symptom: is either subjective, meaning the subjective mentioned in the Book of Colleges, i.e.: gender, season, or type (2), or an external necessary that does not need a cause like heat in relation to fire, or an external that needs an intermediary. And on the third: either that intermediary is a reasoning reasoning, i.e.: it is not the one that is presented for the offer, but rather it is a reason for the offers of the offer (3) on the one presented, or a restrictive one, that is: it is the one that is actually presented for the presentation. The first three sections must be recognized as being subjective; As it is presented to the subject in reality, as for the first, it is fixed to the thing with the highest levels of affirmation, because it is one of its essences, and as for the second, it is fixed for the thing that is necessary for it, and there is no mediation between it and the thing presented, and as for the third, it is also present in reality on the thing; Because the intermediary is only a causal means, and in that it does not differentiate between what they mentioned of the categories of intermediary being different, specific, equal, internal or external, or more general internally or externally. (1) See the articles, part 1, p. 5-7 according to the edition of the Scientific Press in Najaf. As for the edition of the Academy of Islamic Thought in Qom, see: Part 1, pg. 39-47, and Nihayat al-Afkar, Part 1, pg. 13-17. (2) If we take the appendix of the term mentioned in the Book of Colleges, the meaning here is broader than that; It includes subjects other than gender, separation, and gender, as represented by the Iraqi investigator (may God have mercy on him) in Al-Abyadiya and Al-Mujuwdiyyah, stripped of whiteness and existence. In summary: the criterion is that the display is extracted from the station of the same thing, whether that thing is a genus, a class, or a species, or it is not. (3) Like the proximity of the fire that causes heat to show on the water. See Nihat al-Afkar, vol. 1, p. 13, and articles, vol. 1, p. 40, according to the edition of the Islamic Thought Academy.
Alerts:
The warning remained on several matters:
The first: that the fundamentalists mentioned in the maqam the presentation that is presented by means of a distinct matter, and they made it a strange presentation (1), and this section is one of the additions of the scholars of origins, and is not present in the original division.
And the clarification of the joke in that: that the scholars of fundamentals intended by speciality, blindness, and equality of speciality in truth and applicability, and blindness or equality in it.
(1) Perhaps clarifying the meaning is the following:
By offers, they meant the local offers, so whenever an external mediation was imposed between the offer and its place, this means that the offer was presented to that medium, and that medium was presented to the store, and the believable ratio between that medium and the place was the contrast, and the offer was a strange presentation to the store, and its example: deepening The sleep that is accidental to sleep, and the sleep is accidental to the person who is the place, and sleep is different in the befriending ratio with man, so the depth of sleep is a strange symptom for man, while if we take the resource ratio between sleep and man, the ratio between them is blinded by sleep from man; Because its resource is man and many other animals, and we do not find an example of variation.
It is true of the completeness of its individuals and an increase, and the meaning of equality is equality in truth and applicability, i.e.: each of them is true of what the other affirms without the other, so they were forced to make a title opposite to these titles, which is the difference, while the sages are not intended by the blind, the special, and the equality that, Rather, what they want from it is blindness, specialization, and equality in the resource, whether it applies to it or not. This is what ought to be desired; Because the balance in the subjectivity of the symptom with the intermediary and its non-individuality is that the intermediary is equal in the second sense and its absence, so if an accident is presented to a substance by means of another subjective presentation of it, this mediation, although it is different from the substance in the first sense, but with that its presentation is considered a subjective presentation of the substance that has been presented to him by a command Equal, and the secret in that is what preceded that the effect of an effect is an effect, and that what presents a subject to one thing is incidental to another thing in itself and is subjective to it, and that is why al-Tusi’s researcher stated in Explanation of the Signs that the presentation that is presented to the thing by means of an equal command is like what is presented to it by means of His dismissal, or by another offer of equal value, is subjective to him. On this basis, the definitions refer to one of these divisions, i.e. to the general, specific, or equivalent.
The second: I have come to know that what is noticeable for the sages is the originating subjectivity, not the local subjectivity, except that it may be said: The place - which is the bearer of the supply - is also the origin and cause of the presentation; This is because it is a substance for it, so it is one of the four causes of the wise, as they said: A thing needs four causes: the effective cause, the material cause, the formal cause, and the final cause. Therefore, the place is a reason for display; Because it is a material cause of it.
However, we say: the offer is not considered subjective to the subjectiveness of its location; and the joke
It is true of the completeness of its individuals and an increase, and the meaning of equality is equality in truth and applicability, i.e.: each of them is true of what the other affirms without the other, so they were forced to make a title opposite to these titles, which is the difference, while the sages are not intended by the blind, the special, and the equality that, Rather, what they want from it is blindness, specialization, and equality in the resource, whether it applies to it or not. This is what ought to be desired; Because the balance in the subjectivity of the symptom with the intermediary and its non-individuality is that the intermediary is equal in the second sense and its absence, so if an accident is presented to a substance by means of another subjective presentation of it, this mediation, although it is different from the substance in the first sense, but with that its presentation is considered a subjective presentation of the substance that has been presented to him by a command Equal, and the secret in that is what preceded that the effect of an effect is an effect, and that what presents a subject to one thing is incidental to another thing in itself and is subjective to it, and that is why al-Tusi’s researcher stated in Explanation of the Signs that the presentation that is presented to the thing by means of an equal command is like what is presented to it by means of His dismissal, or by another offer of equal value, is subjective to him. On this basis, the definitions refer to one of these divisions, i.e. to the general, specific, or equivalent.
The second: I have come to know that what is noticeable for the sages is the originating subjectivity, not the local subjectivity, except that it may be said: The place - which is the bearer of the supply - is also the origin and cause of the presentation; This is because it is a substance for it, so it is one of the four causes of the wise, as they said: A thing needs four causes: the effective cause, the material cause, the formal cause, and the final cause. Therefore, the place is a reason for display; Because it is a material cause of it.
However, we say: the offer is not considered subjective to the subjectiveness of its location; and the joke
Diagnosing the subject of etymology
As for the subject of Principles, the ancients mentioned that it is the four proofs by what they are, or by what they are.
Latecomers discussed both sides. The conclusion of the discussions: that the subject of science should be applicable to the topics of its issues. And both of these two aspects of defining the subject do not have this joke, so you see that the subject of practical principles is doubt, and doubt is not included in the four evidences, and research on requirements such as the study of the corollary between the necessity of a thing and the necessity of its premise is the assignment, and the assignment is not among the corroboration of the four evidences, so all The subject of these researches is not included in the subject of theology according to this definition on both sides. As for the issues of arguments, some of them do not apply to either of the two aspects either, such as the issue of the authority of fame, for fame is not one of the corroboration of the four proofs, and some of them do not apply to the first aspect and the second aspect applies to it, such as the authoritativeness of the appearances of the book, for example. It is necessary to leave this research on the science of origins; Because the evidence and its authoritativeness were taken as a part or a restriction in the subject, so it must be taken for granted in science, and the subject of science is not searched in the same science, even if the subject is the evidence as it is, that would be applicable to this research; Because the phenomena of the book are included in the book. As for the authenticity of a single report, it may be said that it is outside of both aspects. Because the news of a single person is not a book, nor reason, nor consensus, nor Sunnah. Because the Sunnah is the same as the infallible’s saying, action, and approval, not the narration that relates to it, and it may be said: it is outside the first aspect only; Because searching in it is for the evidence of the evidence, but the second aspect applies to it; And that is with the blessing of one of the cares they mention, perhaps the easiest of which is to expand the scope of the Sunnah for the narrative story.
So it turns out: that the science of Usul is based on these two aspects of defining its subject, and many of its researches depart from it. Yes, it may include vocabularies, such as the meaning of the imperative form of the imperative, if it is assumed that the subject of the issue of the signification of the command over the obligation, for example, is the command
The third: that the issues of fundamentals - as we explained in the definition - are the common rules in the jurisprudential analogy, i.e.: that analogy that makes or excuses from reality. Because, with their real existence, they are neither feasible nor excused, but the fundamental rules are the proofs of these titles.
Thus it becomes clear: that the subject of the four proofs of Usul is of the utmost importance, those common rules that are established in Usul is, of course, not established by the same bases; This is behind, rather it is proven by a superior reference whose authority is established before knowledge, so it is the source for proving the common rules: either directly or through an intermediary. It is not a foregone conclusion before the science of theology, but rather it is from the research of theology. We have clarified that the predicate does not have to be attributable to the subject in relation to the case to the place, rather it may be the ratio of the effect to the cause, and these evidences are the reason to prove the common rules that he talks about in the science of origins, as it is said in
→
God Almighty would have been the subject of all sciences that talk about anything in the world; Because God Almighty is the originator of all of them.
Accordingly, what is correct is to make the subject of Usul the common elements of deduction as it was mentioned in the three episodes of our Martyr Professor (may his secret be sanctified), not in particular the four or three proofs, for everything in Usul is a search for the common symptoms.
The third: that the issues of fundamentals - as we explained in the definition - are the common rules in the jurisprudential analogy, i.e.: that analogy that makes or excuses from reality. Because, with their real existence, they are neither feasible nor excused, but the fundamental rules are the proofs of these titles.
Thus it becomes clear: that the subject of the four proofs of Usul is of the utmost importance, those common rules that are established in Usul is, of course, not established by the same bases; This is behind, rather it is proven by a superior reference whose authority is established before knowledge, so it is the source for proving the common rules: either directly or through an intermediary. It is not a foregone conclusion before the science of theology, but rather it is from the research of theology. We have clarified that the predicate does not have to be attributable to the subject in relation to the case to the place, rather it may be the ratio of the effect to the cause, and these evidences are the reason to prove the common rules that he talks about in the science of origins, as it is said in
→
God Almighty would have been the subject of all sciences that talk about anything in the world; Because God Almighty is the originator of all of them.
Accordingly, what is correct is to make the subject of Usul the common elements of deduction as it was mentioned in the three episodes of our Martyr Professor (may his secret be sanctified), not in particular the four or three proofs, for everything in Usul is a search for the common symptoms.
The third: that the issues of fundamentals - as we explained in the definition - are the common rules in the jurisprudential analogy, i.e.: that analogy that makes or excuses from reality. Because, with their real existence, they are neither feasible nor excused, but the fundamental rules are the proofs of these titles.
Thus it becomes clear: that the subject of the four proofs of Usul is of the utmost importance, those common rules that are established in Usul is, of course, not established by the same bases; This is behind, rather it is proven by a superior reference whose authority is established before knowledge, so it is the source for proving the common rules: either directly or through an intermediary. It is not a foregone conclusion before the science of theology, but rather it is from the research of theology. We have clarified that the predicate does not have to be attributable to the subject in relation to the case to the place, rather it may be the ratio of the effect to the cause, and these evidences are the reason to prove the common rules that he talks about in the science of origins, as it is said in
→
God Almighty would have been the subject of all sciences that talk about anything in the world; Because God Almighty is the originator of all of them.
Accordingly, what is correct is to make the subject of Usul the common elements of deduction as it was mentioned in the three episodes of our Martyr Professor (may his secret be sanctified), not in particular the four or three proofs, for everything in Usul is a search for the common symptoms.
Introduction
24
the situation
○ The reality of the situation.
○ Diagnose the giver.
○ Possible sections of the mode.
○ What is the reality of the possible sections of the situation.
The second thing: the situation.
It is spoken in four directions:
1 In the reality of the situation.
2- In diagnosing the one who is presenting.
3 In the possible sections of the situation.
4 What is the reality of those possible sections.
The chosen building in the reality of the situation:
And achieve the situation in the first place:
There is a formative causation, and a formative law made by the Creator of the universe, who created nature and subjected it to the laws controlling it, which is: that a person according to his nature and the nature that God created him with, whenever he senses something, his feeling of that thing is a reason for his mind to move to the mental image of that thing. The mind refers to the meaning of the lion, for example.
There are two other causalities and two formative secondary laws that govern the first law as a formative government, as if they are extensions of that law:
The first: The feeling of what resembles something is also a reason to visualize the meaning of that thing, so whoever sees the image of the lion drawn on paper, his mind moves to the meaning of the lion, as if the feeling of the image of the lion is a feeling of the soul of the lion.
The second: that the feeling of one thing is associated in the mind with another thing in a special association, which is also a reason for the perception of that other thing, so you see that the one who feels the roar of a lion, for example, has moved his mind to the meaning of the lion, as if the feeling of the lion’s roar is a feeling of the soul of the lion. I mean by feeling the image of a lion or its roar, for example, which includes the transfer of the mind to an image
The lion or its roar, even without an external sense, and by specific pairing, I mean that the pairing has a quantitative specificity, such as the frequent association of the lion’s roar with the lion, or the specificity of how the pairing is in an impressive and striking circumstance, as if a person’s travel to the Hill, for example, is accompanied by a severe illness, so whenever he remembers Traveling to the Hill is a reminder of the disease.
Human beings have benefited since the most distant ages in terms of understanding and understanding from these two secondary laws, for example, you see him understand some meanings by finding his image by hand and others, in order to indicate that so-and-so is wearing a turban, tall or short, or otherwise, he points by hand in a way that depicts an image similar to that, so the addressee’s mind moves To the intended meaning, and this is an application of the first law. In order to understand the meaning of the lion roaring like a lion’s roar, the mind moves from this sound similar to the lion’s roar to the lion’s roar in application of the first law, and from the lion’s roar to the meaning of the lion in application of the second law, thus an understanding of the intended meaning is obtained. The mind of the listener moves from his voice to the lion’s roar in application of the first law, and from the lion’s roar to the lion in application of the second law, and from the lion to the brave one for the resemblance between them in application of the first law, thus obtaining the perception of the intended meaning, which is the brave one. And to this point, it was possible to create a language for humans to understand in order to benefit from the two structural laws without any action by humans in the major of the law that there is a subjective causation in something that was not a cause, nor in the smallest of the law that there is similarity or comparison in what is not similar or comparable, And if a sound similar to the lion’s voice was repeatedly found to denote the brave one, for example, the same sound gradually became indicative of the brave without mediating its significance to the lion’s voice, and the signification of the lion’s voice to the lion, and the sign of the lion to the brave, and that
The lion or its roar, even without an external sense, and by specific pairing, I mean that the pairing has a quantitative specificity, such as the frequent association of the lion’s roar with the lion, or the specificity of how the pairing is in an impressive and striking circumstance, as if a person’s travel to the Hill, for example, is accompanied by a severe illness, so whenever he remembers Traveling to the Hill is a reminder of the disease.
Human beings have benefited since the most distant ages in terms of understanding and understanding from these two secondary laws, for example, you see him understand some meanings by finding his image by hand and others, in order to indicate that so-and-so is wearing a turban, tall or short, or otherwise, he points by hand in a way that depicts an image similar to that, so the addressee’s mind moves To the intended meaning, and this is an application of the first law. In order to understand the meaning of the lion roaring like a lion’s roar, the mind moves from this sound similar to the lion’s roar to the lion’s roar in application of the first law, and from the lion’s roar to the meaning of the lion in application of the second law, thus an understanding of the intended meaning is obtained. The mind of the listener moves from his voice to the lion’s roar in application of the first law, and from the lion’s roar to the lion in application of the second law, and from the lion to the brave one for the resemblance between them in application of the first law, thus obtaining the perception of the intended meaning, which is the brave one. And to this point, it was possible to create a language for humans to understand in order to benefit from the two structural laws without any action by humans in the major of the law that there is a subjective causation in something that was not a cause, nor in the smallest of the law that there is similarity or comparison in what is not similar or comparable, And if a sound similar to the lion’s voice was repeatedly found to denote the brave one, for example, the same sound gradually became indicative of the brave without mediating its significance to the lion’s voice, and the signification of the lion’s voice to the lion, and the sign of the lion to the brave, and that
The lion or its roar, even without an external sense, and by specific pairing, I mean that the pairing has a quantitative specificity, such as the frequent association of the lion’s roar with the lion, or the specificity of how the pairing is in an impressive and striking circumstance, as if a person’s travel to the Hill, for example, is accompanied by a severe illness, so whenever he remembers Traveling to the Hill is a reminder of the disease.
Human beings have benefited since the most distant ages in terms of understanding and understanding from these two secondary laws, for example, you see him understand some meanings by finding his image by hand and others, in order to indicate that so-and-so is wearing a turban, tall or short, or otherwise, he points by hand in a way that depicts an image similar to that, so the addressee’s mind moves To the intended meaning, and this is an application of the first law. In order to understand the meaning of the lion roaring like a lion’s roar, the mind moves from this sound similar to the lion’s roar to the lion’s roar in application of the first law, and from the lion’s roar to the meaning of the lion in application of the second law, thus an understanding of the intended meaning is obtained. The mind of the listener moves from his voice to the lion’s roar in application of the first law, and from the lion’s roar to the lion in application of the second law, and from the lion to the brave one for the resemblance between them in application of the first law, thus obtaining the perception of the intended meaning, which is the brave one. And to this point, it was possible to create a language for humans to understand in order to benefit from the two structural laws without any action by humans in the major of the law that there is a subjective causation in something that was not a cause, nor in the smallest of the law that there is similarity or comparison in what is not similar or comparable, And if a sound similar to the lion’s voice was repeatedly found to denote the brave one, for example, the same sound gradually became indicative of the brave without mediating its significance to the lion’s voice, and the signification of the lion’s voice to the lion, and the sign of the lion to the brave, and that
The lion or its roar, even without an external sense, and by specific pairing, I mean that the pairing has a quantitative specificity, such as the frequent association of the lion’s roar with the lion, or the specificity of how the pairing is in an impressive and striking circumstance, as if a person’s travel to the Hill, for example, is accompanied by a severe illness, so whenever he remembers Traveling to the Hill is a reminder of the disease.
Human beings have benefited since the most distant ages in terms of understanding and understanding from these two secondary laws, for example, you see him understand some meanings by finding his image by hand and others, in order to indicate that so-and-so is wearing a turban, tall or short, or otherwise, he points by hand in a way that depicts an image similar to that, so the addressee’s mind moves To the intended meaning, and this is an application of the first law. In order to understand the meaning of the lion roaring like a lion’s roar, the mind moves from this sound similar to the lion’s roar to the lion’s roar in application of the first law, and from the lion’s roar to the meaning of the lion in application of the second law, thus an understanding of the intended meaning is obtained. The mind of the listener moves from his voice to the lion’s roar in application of the first law, and from the lion’s roar to the lion in application of the second law, and from the lion to the brave one for the resemblance between them in application of the first law, thus obtaining the perception of the intended meaning, which is the brave one. And to this point, it was possible to create a language for humans to understand in order to benefit from the two structural laws without any action by humans in the major of the law that there is a subjective causation in something that was not a cause, nor in the smallest of the law that there is similarity or comparison in what is not similar or comparable, And if a sound similar to the lion’s voice was repeatedly found to denote the brave one, for example, the same sound gradually became indicative of the brave without mediating its significance to the lion’s voice, and the signification of the lion’s voice to the lion, and the sign of the lion to the brave, and that
The lion or its roar, even without an external sense, and by specific pairing, I mean that the pairing has a quantitative specificity, such as the frequent association of the lion’s roar with the lion, or the specificity of how the pairing is in an impressive and striking circumstance, as if a person’s travel to the Hill, for example, is accompanied by a severe illness, so whenever he remembers Traveling to the Hill is a reminder of the disease.
Human beings have benefited since the most distant ages in terms of understanding and understanding from these two secondary laws, for example, you see him understand some meanings by finding his image by hand and others, in order to indicate that so-and-so is wearing a turban, tall or short, or otherwise, he points by hand in a way that depicts an image similar to that, so the addressee’s mind moves To the intended meaning, and this is an application of the first law. In order to understand the meaning of the lion roaring like a lion’s roar, the mind moves from this sound similar to the lion’s roar to the lion’s roar in application of the first law, and from the lion’s roar to the meaning of the lion in application of the second law, thus an understanding of the intended meaning is obtained. The mind of the listener moves from his voice to the lion’s roar in application of the first law, and from the lion’s roar to the lion in application of the second law, and from the lion to the brave one for the resemblance between them in application of the first law, thus obtaining the perception of the intended meaning, which is the brave one. And to this point, it was possible to create a language for humans to understand in order to benefit from the two structural laws without any action by humans in the major of the law that there is a subjective causation in something that was not a cause, nor in the smallest of the law that there is similarity or comparison in what is not similar or comparable, And if a sound similar to the lion’s voice was repeatedly found to denote the brave one, for example, the same sound gradually became indicative of the brave without mediating its significance to the lion’s voice, and the signification of the lion’s voice to the lion, and the sign of the lion to the brave, and that
The lion or its roar, even without an external sense, and by specific pairing, I mean that the pairing has a quantitative specificity, such as the frequent association of the lion’s roar with the lion, or the specificity of how the pairing is in an impressive and striking circumstance, as if a person’s travel to the Hill, for example, is accompanied by a severe illness, so whenever he remembers Traveling to the Hill is a reminder of the disease.
Human beings have benefited since the most distant ages in terms of understanding and understanding from these two secondary laws, for example, you see him understand some meanings by finding his image by hand and others, in order to indicate that so-and-so is wearing a turban, tall or short, or otherwise, he points by hand in a way that depicts an image similar to that, so the addressee’s mind moves To the intended meaning, and this is an application of the first law. In order to understand the meaning of the lion roaring like a lion’s roar, the mind moves from this sound similar to the lion’s roar to the lion’s roar in application of the first law, and from the lion’s roar to the meaning of the lion in application of the second law, thus an understanding of the intended meaning is obtained. The mind of the listener moves from his voice to the lion’s roar in application of the first law, and from the lion’s roar to the lion in application of the second law, and from the lion to the brave one for the resemblance between them in application of the first law, thus obtaining the perception of the intended meaning, which is the brave one. And to this point, it was possible to create a language for humans to understand in order to benefit from the two structural laws without any action by humans in the major of the law that there is a subjective causation in something that was not a cause, nor in the smallest of the law that there is similarity or comparison in what is not similar or comparable, And if a sound similar to the lion’s voice was repeatedly found to denote the brave one, for example, the same sound gradually became indicative of the brave without mediating its significance to the lion’s voice, and the signification of the lion’s voice to the lion, and the sign of the lion to the brave, and that
course of consideration:
As for the second course: which is the course of consideration, it is divided into several peoples on the basis of the differences of the owners of this path in regard to which consideration is related.
The first aspect: that the consideration in linguistic situations is the external situation, and the clarification of this is:
There is no problem that placing something on something outside is often indicative of something, for example, they place flags on the ground in places far apart between one farsakh and one farsakh, for example, to designate the heads of the farsakhs, or a flag is erected on a well to know the presence of the well here, and so on. In the section of linguistic situations also, it means putting something on something, i.e.: placing the word on the meaning in order to complete the connotation, except that the external situation is not really possible here, so there is this external situation as a consideration, i.e.: it is considered that the word was placed on the meaning, so it is completed.
He says: The subject is his and the subject is in the external situation, they may be plural in external existence, and they may be plural by analysis, not by external existence. Multiple according to the outer existence, and a flag may be erected on a land to denote the head of the farsakh, so the subject on it is the earth and the subject for it is the head of the farsakh, and they are united in the outer existence, multiple by analysis. It is considered a subject for it, so let what we are about be like this, by imposing the word “lion” for example as a subject, and the meaning used in it on its entirety and regardless of its identification and designation as a subject, and that meaning is the predatory animal as its subject, so the subject is multiplied and the subject is for him by analysis. And the situation here also has three pillars, so the first confusion and astonishment has arisen, which is: How did this situation become with two pillars? You knew that it also has three pillars, the ultimate in what there is: that there is a plurality between the subject for him and the subject on him by analysis, and this is what happens in many of the external situation resources as well.
Thus, the answer to the second problem becomes clear as well, which is: that the meaning must be placed upon it, for you have known that the meaning, which is the predatory animal, is subject to it, and the subject upon it is the one used in it in its entirety.
It has appeared: that the owner of this face can push these two problems.
However, what is correct is that the origin of this aspect is nothing more than a mere tampering with words. And to clarify this: this aspect is supposed to have been considered in the linguistic situations
He says: The subject is his and the subject is in the external situation, they may be plural in external existence, and they may be plural by analysis, not by external existence. Multiple according to the outer existence, and a flag may be erected on a land to denote the head of the farsakh, so the subject on it is the earth and the subject for it is the head of the farsakh, and they are united in the outer existence, multiple by analysis. It is considered a subject for it, so let what we are about be like this, by imposing the word “lion” for example as a subject, and the meaning used in it on its entirety and regardless of its identification and designation as a subject, and that meaning is the predatory animal as its subject, so the subject is multiplied and the subject is for him by analysis. And the situation here also has three pillars, so the first confusion and astonishment has arisen, which is: How did this situation become with two pillars? You knew that it also has three pillars, the ultimate in what there is: that there is a plurality between the subject for him and the subject on him by analysis, and this is what happens in many of the external situation resources as well.
Thus, the answer to the second problem becomes clear as well, which is: that the meaning must be placed upon it, for you have known that the meaning, which is the predatory animal, is subject to it, and the subject upon it is the one used in it in its entirety.
It has appeared: that the owner of this face can push these two problems.
However, what is correct is that the origin of this aspect is nothing more than a mere tampering with words. And to clarify this: this aspect is supposed to have been considered in the linguistic situations
He says: The subject is his and the subject is in the external situation, they may be plural in external existence, and they may be plural by analysis, not by external existence. Multiple according to the outer existence, and a flag may be erected on a land to denote the head of the farsakh, so the subject on it is the earth and the subject for it is the head of the farsakh, and they are united in the outer existence, multiple by analysis. It is considered a subject for it, so let what we are about be like this, by imposing the word “lion” for example as a subject, and the meaning used in it on its entirety and regardless of its identification and designation as a subject, and that meaning is the predatory animal as its subject, so the subject is multiplied and the subject is for him by analysis. And the situation here also has three pillars, so the first confusion and astonishment has arisen, which is: How did this situation become with two pillars? You knew that it also has three pillars, the ultimate in what there is: that there is a plurality between the subject for him and the subject on him by analysis, and this is what happens in many of the external situation resources as well.
Thus, the answer to the second problem becomes clear as well, which is: that the meaning must be placed upon it, for you have known that the meaning, which is the predatory animal, is subject to it, and the subject upon it is the one used in it in its entirety.
It has appeared: that the owner of this face can push these two problems.
However, what is correct is that the origin of this aspect is nothing more than a mere tampering with words. And to clarify this: this aspect is supposed to have been considered in the linguistic situations