تعدد مناهج الأصوليين في تعريف القياس : الأسباب و الآثار

Abstract EN

This research aims to identify the term al-qiyas al-usull (analogical deduction used in usul al-fiqh), explain the methods of usull scholars to clarify its real meaning, explain the reason for their difference in these methods, and to show the impact of this difference in the usull research that exists in their books.

The problem of the research is to identify the usull scholars’ definition of the term analogy (qiyas) and try to develop a comprehensive picture of their methods of this definition, searching the reason for this difference, and explaining its impact on usull sub-issues.

The research uses the inductive method to track the definitions; the descriptive method to reveal what was written about the definitions, the reasons for the difference in them and its effects; and the analytical method for explaining the methods, causes and effects of the difference.

The research concluded that the usull scholars used three methods in their definitions: one method considered the analogy as the work of a mujtahid represented in transferring the ruling (from the original issue to a new issue); another method considered it as the work of a mujtahid represented in manifesting (this rule); and a third method gave the analogy an additional meaning which takes place between the original issue and the new issue, and a mujtahid has nothing to do with this.

This difference in definitions shows the different viewpoints.

Some scholars stated that it is dependent on how the scholars interpret the rationale of the original ruling.

Others stated that it is dependent on how the scholars investigate and establish the level of equality between the original case and its ruling and the new case and its ruling.

Others said that it is dependent on the difference in the authenticity of reasoning by resemblance.

Others suggested that the variations are influenced by many historical landmarks that resulted in having these different definitions and methods.

As for the effects of this difference in the usull sub-issues, it was represented in two things: the authenticity of the analogy, and the depth of the usull research in the field of analogical deduction.