أسس و مقومات مقاصد الشريعة

Abstract EN

The Imamy jurisprudence could not crystalize a clear Intentionality save in the late time; yet.

It does not mean that the previous jurists had neglected intentions in deducting judgments; they had their own opinions and application in this field that are found in their different researches such as: cause stipulated analogy, priority analogy, rational principle of goodness and badness, etc.

The reason of this lateness ascribed firstly to a number of the cognitive and objective elements that led to limit the intentions` role in the imamy jurisprudence comparing to other schools; the most important elements are three: - the presumption non-authority, except that which has a special evidence, the text period length comparing to other jurisprudential schools, which provided the jurisprudential system with a great number of texts and rules that help the jurist to deduct judgment, and the isolation that the Imamy jurist had experienced for a long time due to the opinions and visions of the Imamy school that opposite the Umayyad, Abbasside an Ottoman states.

Hence we can say that the intentionality theory for the Imamate provided the conclusiveness or the non-stipulated cause which added high value to the jurisprudence of intentionality and its effect on the jurisprudential knowledge.

The importance of this condition is clarified in that it limits, and even ends, the attempts to ideologies the intentions and change deduction into a theater of probabilities and personal opinions.

This limitation resulted in limiting the methods of obtaining causing in spite of justifying the Divine actions, where there is no doubt that the causes that are deducted by a conclusive method are rare, so we can say that intentionality, for the Imamate, mostly ends to the text.

On the level of application, we can notice that there is a gap between the theory and its applications where the applications are few or even rare because, as it mentioned before, there are a lot of texts and rules on which the jurist can relay even in the new issues, in addition to the isolation that had been imposed on the Imamate jurist which made him restricted to the available means The Imamy jurisprudence could not crystalize a clear Intentionality save in the late time; yet.

It does not mean that the previous jurists had neglected intentions in deducting judgments; they had their own opinions and application in this field that are found in their different researches such as: cause stipulated analogy, priority analogy, rational principle of goodness and badness, etc.

The reason of this lateness ascribed firstly to a number of the cognitive and objective elements that led to limit the intentions` role in the imamy jurisprudence comparing to other schools; the most important elements are three: - the presumption non-authority, except that which has a special evidence, the text period length comparing to other jurisprudential schools, which provided the jurisprudential system with a great number of texts and rules that help the jurist to deduct judgment, and the isolation that the Imamy jurist had experienced for a long time due to the opinions and visions of the Imamy school that opposite the Umayyad, Abbasside an Ottoman states.

Hence we can say that the intentionality theory for the Imamate provided the conclusiveness or the non-stipulated cause which added high value to the jurisprudence of intentionality and its effect on the jurisprudential knowledge.

The importance of this condition is clarified in that it limits, and even ends, the attempts to ideologies the intentions and change deduction into a theater of probabilities and personal opinions.

This limitation resulted in limiting the methods of obtaining causing in spite of justifying the Divine actions, where there is no doubt that the causes that are deducted by a conclusive method are rare, so we can say that intentionality, for the Imamate, mostly ends to the text.

On the level of application, we can notice that there is a gap between the theory and its applications where the applications are few or even rare because, as it mentioned before, there are a lot of texts and rules on which the jurist can relay even in the new issues, in addition to the isolation that had been imposed on the Imamate jurist which made him restricted to the available means