Abstract
This study investigates the origin of the discrepancy among Islamic jurisprudence thinkers regarding the construction of evidence based on two premises. I have delineated the locus of disagreement in the issue as strictly limiting the construction of evidence to two premises only. The disagreement is divided into two schools of thought: some believe that constructing evidence does not depend solely on two premises, while others hold that it does depend only on two premises. After all, I have explained why there is dispute in this case, and it all comes down to one thing: the legal definition of proof. This explanation has to do with the foundational ideas of jurisprudence. The study ends with a number of recommendations, such as carrying out a thorough investigation to define evidence in jurisprudence, contrasting it with the definition in logic, and examining the proof offered by academics who endorse the use of two premises in the construction of evidence. It also recommends studying the jurisprudential rules related to constructing evidence and their impact on legal arguments. May Allah grant success.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
