اختلاف الأصوليين في دلالة الأمر المطلق على الفور و أثره في الفروع الفقهية

Abstract EN

Ancient and contemporary scholars of jurisprudence have been interested in legal orders.

Legal orders exist in every jurisprudent books.

Some jurisprudent books started with chapters concerned with commandment and prohibition through which lawful and unlawful issues are recognized, and many rulings are proven.

The present study aims at determining whether general legal orders should be fulfilled immediately or could be postponed.

It also aims at appling the jurisprudent rule – the topic of the study- on the jurisprudential branches.

The study adopts an inductive deductive approach.

It arrives at a number of conclusions as follows.

Scholars have agreed that when the imperative form “Eif'al” [do] is constrained by a certain time (either very specific as in the fasting of Ramadan or ample of time as in the prayer of Al-Zuhr), the ruling is executed in accordance with the time specified; rulings based on the imperative form should be executed at once when indicators of immediacy are provided; rulings based on the imperative form could be postponed when procrastination is indicated.

Scholars have agreed on this point.

They also have agreed that carrying out orders quickly is desirable.

As a result, legally competent Muslims should speed up and do what Allah Almighty has ordered so as to free oneself from guilt.

Scholars of the four major schools of thought have disagreed about the legal ruling of general orders that are not constrained by a specific time and no indicators of immediacy or procrastination are provided.

The most plausible opinion states that general orders indicate neither immediacy nor procrastination; rather, they indicate the mere execution of the order.

This opinion makes things easy for legally competent Muslims.

As for the school of thought that necessitates carrying out orders immediately make things difficult unnecessarily.

The reason behind disagreement over this issue is that legal orders are stated sometimes with indicators of immediacy, and other times with indicators of procrastination.

There is no evidence supporting that the four Imams of the four major schools of thought have agreed that the imperative form should be executed at once or not; attribution of such view to the four Imams is understood from their jurisprudential branches.

There is a turmoil and disagreement concerning this issue of attributing views.

Disagreement over this issue is a moral one as jurisprudents in turn have disagreed over many of the jurisprudential branches.