Theological foundations of the Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence as regards reasoning،implication، and evidenc Relation

Principles of jurisprudence – with three comprehensive fields of “reasoning”, “signification” and “proportions of evidences” – are the most important tool of jurisprudential inference. Most of the different jurisprudential opinions are due to differences in basic principles. In fact, fundamental differences are due to differences in theological views that have been infected the principles of jurisdiction. Although some fundamentalists have seen these differences only in the field of the science of principles and they have rejected or corrected them in the same field, the source lies elsewhere. Sometimes, theological approaches have reflected in various fundamental opinions and have caused differences in principles. The matter could be managed through conducting holistic approach and reviewing related sciences. The present study seek to investigate fundamental differences and their sources. As an illustration in Hojit- ghat (dogmatic and errorless belief) as one the concepts of the logic ; the five theological views of rational badness, intellectual goodness and badness, the right of obedience and validity of affairs, and the repulsion of possible harm are effective. In another illustration, different schools of the Islamic jurisprudence have different opinions about the reasoning, signification and comparison of the Qur’an with other evidences. The difference is due to their theological approach. In the same vein, the difference that exists in the reasoning and meaning of the current infallible tradition and the infallible narrative tradition and sirah(way of thinking) of Oghala (wise people) has originated from their different theological viewpoints. The present study enjoyed a descriptive-analytical and religion-based method to investigate the effect of theological developments on principles. The matter was achieved via categorization of principled views to refine the issues and facilitate jurisprudential inferences.