الاعتراض بالمنع عند الأصوليين : حقيقته و أقسامه و حكمه

Abstract EN

This research aims to clarify the meaning of the objection to prevention, and to clarify its reality according to the fundamentalists in the chapter on analogy, and the terms that are synonymous with it, and to explain its divisions, and the ruling of each section in terms of the validity of the objection or not, with an explanation of how to respond to the objection with the ban when it is valid.

Analytical, and divided it into an introduction, two sections and a conclusion.

And an indication of the number of objections received on the cause in general, and showed the approach of the public in dividing the objections received on the cause, and in the second section, the sections of objection dealt with prevention by study and analysis, and it came in five demands: the first: to prevent the origin from being justified, and the second: to prevent the existence of what is claimed to be a cause in the original, And the third: to prevent the alleged description from being a bug, and the fourth: to prevent the rule of the origin, and the fifth: to prevent the existence of the root cause in the branch, and one of the most important results of the research is that the objection in the terminology is to meet the opponent in his words with what prevents him from achieving his purpose, and that the prohibition in the fundamentalist terminology is the non-acceptance of The statement of the inferred and his demand for evidence, and that the objection to preventing the original being justified is a valid objection that is acceptable to the more correct.

And the objection to preventing the existence of what is claimed to be a reason in the original is an objection agreed to its validity, and the objection to preventing the alleged description being a valid objection to the most correct objection to the public, and the objection to preventing the rule of the original being an objection agreed upon its validity, and that the objection to preventing the rule of the origin does not require the interruption of the inferred from the well-known among the fundamentalists.

And that the objector is not interrupted after establishing the inferred for his evidence for the rule of the original, but rather he has the objection to the public, and the objection to prevent the existence of the reason for the origin in the branch is an objection agreed on its validity.