جريان القياس في اللغة و أثره في الفروع الفقهية

الملخص EN

jurisprudential branches” is one of the important fundamentalist topics.

Does it help the jurist and fundamentalist to know whether or not the language can be proven by analogy? The jurisprudential branches based on it, and this research included an introduction, three topics, and a conclusion.

As for the introduction, it included the topic of the research, reasons for choosing it, previous studies, methodology for this research, and the research plan.

As for the first topic in editing the subject of dispute in The flow of analogy in the language, and the doctrines of the fundamentalists are in the place of disagreement, and it became clear through this study: that there is no disagreement among the scholars that analogy does not take place in the language if the beneficiary is a judgment, such as: raising the subject and the accusative object, and there is no disagreement between them also regarding the lack of flow The analogy is in the language if the one who is benefited from it is a word, whether it is science, such as: “Zaid and Amr, ” or an adjective, such as: “the scholar and the ignorant.

” Likewise, there is no dispute between them regarding the lack of analogy in the language if the used expression is a gender name that has a meaning It cannot be observed in anything other than its gender, such as: “man.

” As for the point of disagreement: in the flow of analogy in the term learned from the language if a gender name has a meaning that can be observed in a different gender, such as the word: “wine”, then it is a gender name placed for grape juice if He went to great lengths and tossed more, which means al-khamrah, as it dampens the mind and covers it.

If this meaning is found in wine, is it permissible to use a name? Wine "is on him - wine - as an analogy to the cause of khamir.

The scholars differed on this on six schools of thought.

As for the second study, it deals with the evidence of each of these schools of thought, with discussion and weighting, and through it the evidence of the doctrines on the issue is presented, then the most correct doctrine is explained, and as for the study The third is the impact of the disagreement on the flow of analogy in the language in the jurisprudential branches, and it includes three jurisprudential branches, the first branch: the punishment of the bearer, the second branch: the punishment for a wine drinker, the third branch: the punishment for sodomy, and this study was done in each of the three branches: Editing The subject of the dispute - if any - then explaining the doctrines of the jurists in the jurisprudential branch, the evidence of each doctrine, discussing as much as possible, then linking the fiqhi branch with the fundamentalist issue, then weighting, and as for the conclusion: it included the most important results of this research, and the index of sources and references.