Abstract:
One of the challenges that jurists face when encountering Sharia evidence is whether the mentioned ruling is specific to the subject mentioned in the evidence or if it applies to other subjects as well? Does the ruling encompass all instances of its subject, or does it only include some of them? One of the most important rules for inferring from evidence is the proportionality between the ruling and the subject mentioned in the evidence. The question is what use and benefit jurists have derived from the harmony and compatibility between the ruling and the subject, and through this suitability, what changes they have introduced into the scope of the subject and the ruling. So far, no writing has been produced that gathers a large number of the functions of this clue. In this research, an attempt is made to explain the clue of appropriateness and to collect a significant number of applications of the clue of appropriateness in the words of jurists, so that the reader becomes familiar with the scope of effectiveness and the channels of this clue and has greater ease in its application.
Machine summary:
By examining the functions of the suitability between the ruling and the subject in the words of jurists, one can understand the effectiveness of this indicator, discover its channels, and in cases where there is a need to use this indicator, utilize it with greater familiarity.
This third application of the term "mawdu'" used in the text of the science of Usul ِ ِ is a matter of attention and discussion, one of whose instances is the suitability (munasabat) between the ruling (hukm) and the subject (mawdu').
The reason this is said is because the propositions discussed in logic do not include performative utterances (insha'iyyat) (ibid), but in the discussion of the suitability (munasabat) between the ruling and the subject, performative sentences are also raised, such as the example "qallad Zaydan" which, with the help of ّ a contextual clue (qarinat munasabat), is determined to mean that Zayd is a scholar (Lajnat al-Fiqh al-Mu'asir, 1442 AH, p.
The conventional understanding of the evidence, which sometimes perceives the general meaning as specific and sometimes does not consider the characteristic mentioned in the evidence to be the sole restrictor of the meaning, is due to the suitability that, from a conventional perspective, exists between the subject and the ruling (Sadr, 1418 AH, Vol. 1, p.
Muhaqqiq Khoei states that although the apparent meaning of the text is that the obligation to pay khums only pertains to buying and selling, the suitability between the ruling and the subject, according to customary understanding, requires the cancellation of the specificity of 'purchase'.
(
, 
, 
)
