The Foundation for the Construction and Preference of Fundamentalism

Abstract

This research aims to establish a law that represents a key and a window to enter the foundations of the principles, so that the practitioner of the principles of jurisprudence will be more knowledgeable, have a deeper understanding, and be more capable of investigating the principles of the ancient scholars, and clarifying the depth of the principles of jurisprudence and discipline in the foundations of the ancients. It also aims to control the efforts of the principles of jurisprudence when extracting the principles and building them and weighing between the controversial principles, which is the essence of the efforts of the ancient scholars in the principles of jurisprudence, clarifying what the science of principles is based on, where they began and how they branched out its branches, and organized its structure, so that it emerges as a sound science disciplined in its origin, fixed and straight on its scientific foundations. To achieve this, we used the inductive, descriptive, and analytical method, and we divided the research into an introduction, and its divisions into two sections. The first: deals with the theoretical foundations of the construction of the principles of jurisprudence, while the second section: was to clarify the practical steps in the construction of the principles of jurisprudence, and a conclusion through which we arrived at a group of results, the most important of which are the following: The importance of the foundations for construction and weighing in the science of the principles of jurisprudence should be known. Any principle that does not take into account the principles of authentication in its construction is superfluous and devoid of any legal meaning, and is therefore not suitable to be added to the principles of Islamic jurisprudence. Rational evidence can only be subordinate to transmitted evidence and serve it. In addition, the agreed-upon principles (the Qur’an, the Sunnah, consensus, and analogy) are proven by conclusive evidence, and the difference in the methods of extracting principles is not limited to differences in their origin, but rather has extended to differences in the argument of some agreed-upon indications, such as the indication of the general, for example. The principles of hidden indication are proven by necessity and preponderance of thought, while the principles of apparent indication are definitively proven.