تقديم العلة المتعدية على القاصرة من المرجحات بين الأقيسة المتعارضة عند الإمام الماوردي

Abstract EN

The research is summarized in the definition of Imam Al-Mawardi, and the statement of his method of weighing between opposing syllogisms in general through the general rules of weighting, and presenting the transgressive reason for the minor, especially in the branches of jurisprudence, an applied inductive study on the book of the great container.

Al-Qadi Al-Mawardi is considered one of the skilled scholars of the fundamentals, who have the lead in implementing the rules of fundamentalism and the evidence for its rulings in the branches of jurisprudence.

Imam al-Mawardi did not contradict the fundamentalists in the definition of analogy, rather he considered it an act of the mujtahid, as is the case with many fundamentalists.

It also appears to me that the general rules of preference apply to all contradictory evidence, because abandoning one of the two parties is based on what the mujtahid thinks most likely, or what appears to him of error as a result of the inference of his opponents.

And this is what was demonstrated and demonstrated by the school of the theologians in that the reasoning with the transitive cause is better than the reasoning with the minor cause in giving preference to it, and that it is more beneficial and more general in its ruling than the non-transitive one.

Therefore, the transitive cause is better than the minor, because of its generality and its inclusion of the most general benefits in all the rulings, and this increases the ruling's strength in the branch and the preponderance of suspicion subsequent to its justification, and work to achieve the benefit in the reasoning to what transcends it to other branches.