Delaying of Declaration and its effect on the fundamental though
مجلة جامعة الأنبار للعلوم الإسلامیة,
2011, السنة 3, العدد 11, الصفحة 121-186
الملخصThe research entitled "Deferring Interpretation and its Effect on the Fundamentalist Thought" consists of four chapters. The researcher tries to present the definition of interpretation and the meaning of its deferring for the fundamentalists. He shows that grades of interpretation vary whether being literal or implicit. The researcher introduces the fundamentalist's approach in the arrangement of these grades and their representation. Also, he lists the ways of interpretation with illustrative examples. This is followed by an exposition of discourse that requires interpretation. That discourse is of two kinds; one is the literal meaning which is used different to what is intended and the second has no literal meaning.
Then, the researcher mentions the viewpoints of the fundamentalists concerning the permissibility to defer interpretation via four sects mentioning the evidences and discussing them. He explains the most predominant of them which the public opinion has advocated and which assumes deferring discourse until the implement of the action, if there is no great need or interest which necessitates deferring. This is followed by fundamental issues and problems arranged by the fundamentalists under the rule which states that it is illegal to defer interpretation until necessity. These problems relate to the opposition between the public and the private for there is a disagreement amongst the fundamentalists concerning the true nature of particularization whether it is purely interpretation or interpretation and opposition. Accordingly, they differed in evidencing the opposition and foregrounding the private at the expense of the public, or whether the deferred should be given precedence or comparison and time have a role in making the deferred invalid for particularization. This issue is followed by keeping silent when an interpretation is needed represented by a question about an issue of various judgments. The answer for that issue covered some of its aspects only, notwithstanding that those kept silent of need interpretation. Does his (Prophet Mohammed) keeping silent or refusing to answer with his profound knowledge represent an evidence of nullifying its obligation or not?
This is followed by the issue of restriction and generalization and whether the generalized should be treated as the restricted. This again an issue based on deferring interpretation, for those who advocated that they should, believe that the speech of the wise if exceeds a previous text, that increase is an explanation to the first discourse. Some have necessitated that if the general is to be treated as the restricted, interpretation should not be deferred when needed. This is so close to an issue which Al-Hanafia call "an addition to the text". Is this addition an interpretation or invalidation?
These are the issues the researcher has tried elucidate with illustrative samples. He has concluded that this subject is so important that occupies a wide scope in philology, and it has many applications that should attract much attention.
- عدد الزيارات للمقالة: 108
- مرات تحميل الملف الأصلي للمقالة: 35