صلة الرتبة المقصدية باستعمال الأدلة الحكمية : دراسة أصولية تحليلية

Abstract EN

This research sheds light on the relationship between foundational evidences of Shari'a which are based on reason and wisdom and the three stages of Shari'a objectives.

The study adopts a descriptive and analytical approach.

It concludes that 'rational analogy' relates more to the essential and complementary objectives.

However, 'formal analogy' usually rules desirable objectives.

'Unqualified public interest' will be authoritative if considered in essential and complimentary objectives.

In contrast, the majority of scholars invalidate the interest that refers to desirables unless its similarity to Shari'a oriented interests is juristically witnessed.

'Blocking the means to evil' grounds on both a complementary or desirable objective and it will be distinguished as public interest if it serves the essentials.

'Juristic preference' is the interest which is exceptionally deducted from the general rules of Shari'a or scholarly preferred while conflicting another interest or harm.

Therefore, it can be related to the entire stages of the objectives.

Although some Hanafi scholars judged this evidence of law as such that relates approximately to desirable intents, the author disagrees and prefers that since it is related to the removal of hardship, it can be shown as a servant to complimentary objectives.