چکیده:
The present study, within the jurisprudential methodology of jurists, confronts the researcher with two general methods of derivation. The first method, referred to as the 'Fiqh of Contentment' (Fiqh al-Qana'at) method, is one in which the jurist proceeds to aggregate various probabilities (zhunūn) regarding a matter; by appending them to one another, he attains certainty, confidence, or a level of probability that he deems the best possible way regarding the legal ruling on the issue, even if each of those probabilities and evidences individually possesses no value in derivation or is not, in technical jurisprudential terms, a proof (hujjah). The second method in the process of ijtihad is called the 'Fiqh of Craft' (Fiqh al-Sina'at) method. According to this method, the jurist engages in ijtihad and the derivation of rulings using a specific and limited group of evidences whose authority (hujjiyyah) has been proven in the science of the principles of jurisprudence; if those evidences lack the conditions of authority, they are set aside, and the jurist turns to the practical principles (al-usul al-'amaliyyah). In this article, an attempt has been made, relying on a comparative research method, to examine the ijtihad method of Sahib al-Jawahir and Muhaqqiq al-Khoei and to highlight the effects of the differences in the ijtihad methods of these two jurists.
خلاصه ماشینی:
The first method, which is termed the method of "Fiqh al-Qana'at" (Jurisprudence of Sufficiency), is a method according to which the jurist engages in the aggregation of various presumptive evidences (zhunoon) regarding a matter; by attaching them to one another, he attains certainty, confidence, or a level of presumption that he considers the best available means regarding the Sharia ruling on the matter, even if each of those presumptive evidences and proofs individually possesses no value in deduction or is not, in technical jurisprudential terms, a proof (hujjah).
According to the second method, the matter is no different from two states: either the authority of the jurists' opinions has been proven within the discussion of consensus (ijma') and fame of fatwa (shuhrat al-fatawa) in the science of the principles of jurisprudence, or it has not; if those two are authoritative, they are undoubtedly used by the jurist in the process of ijtihad, otherwise, they are generally set aside and have no effect on reaching the final result.
Such attention to the effects of a fatwa before its issuance is considered another instance of difference between the ijtihad methods of the jurisprudence of contentment (fiqh al-qana'at) and the jurisprudence of industry (fiqh al-sina'at); because according to the principles-based industry, it is clear that such a matter has no involvement in the process of deriving a Sharia ruling, but according to the contentment-oriented method, since despite the negative consequence, obtaining certainty becomes difficult for the mujtahid and the faqih cannot convince his own conscience, issuing a fatwa becomes difficult for him.
(
, 
, 
)
