جدل التجديد الأصولي بين المؤيدين و المعارضين

Abstract EN

This article aims to show the controversy of foundationalism renewal between proponents and opponents in the principles of jurisprudence and the opinion of those who reject it.

The study employs the descriptive analytical approach.

It concludes that the renewal in the principles of jurisprudence is a reality that cannot be denied, and that those who opposed renewal reject this idea for the fear of changing this science and removing consideration from it completely.

In fact, those who support renewal differentiate between acceptable renewal and rejected renewal.

They support renewal in the principles of jurisprudence so that it achieves its goal and performs its desired functions.

However, at the same time they reject renewal if it leads to changing this science and removing consideration from it completely.

The study also shows that the arguments of those who opposed the renewal are not able to present the evidence of the other party and overcome it, because the evidence of the proponents clearly shows the extent of the great need for renewal, and that it is no longer possible to differ in its legitimacy and implementation.