تعدد الحق : دراسة تأصيلية تطبيقية

Abstract EN

The present paper aims to investigate one of the issues of ijtihad (exercising discretionary independent judgment), namely whether the person deemed right in a controversial issues is only one? Or is it rather the case that every independent ruling is also right.

It studies scholars' views and the pieces of evidence they provided on specific issues to reveal how their disagreement may result in subsequent disagreement on other related issues of jurisprudence principles.

The research paper is divided into an introduction and two sections.

Section 1 is devoted to presenting the authenticity of the issue by portraying its aspects, expounding its views, its pieces of evidence, showing the most acceptable in each case and the reason for disagreement.

Section 2 represents the applied part of the study.

It includes two subsections: the first one addresses the jurist issues examined in the light of the rule of 'multiplicity of the truth'.

It addresses the following three questions: 1.

It is permissible for a mujtahid to state that his independent opinion is the only right one while the others are mistaken? 2.

Should the proponent of "the wrong" independent opinion be tolerated or punished? 3.

Should ijtihad (exercising discretionary independent judgment) be deemed invalid when violating obvious analogy? The study investigates each issues by mentioning scholars' views therein, pieces of evidence of each view, the more adequately preferable view and the reason behind disagreement.

The second subsection dwells on some jurisprudential issues whose disagreement reason lies in the multiplicity of the truth and the resulting jurist issues.

The study ends with a conclusion that summarizes the most prominent findings and recommendations.