|Scholars opinions about analysis
|Page 1 of 1|
|Author:||Linguistic [ 29 Apr 2010, 16:59 ]|
|Post subject:||Scholars opinions about analysis|
Professor Ahmed Ibrahim, rahimahullah, defines analysis الاجتهاد in his book علم أصول الفقه as "a jurist doing his best to obtain a juristic ruling by way of deduction." He says the analyst must be a jurist فقيه because otherwise he doesn't have the qualifications that entitle him to deduce rulings, much like an ordinary man cannot diagnose a disease.
He says that the aim is juristic, not theological. That is, the analysis will deal primarily with textual evidence addressing practical matters, not articles of the faith. Analysis of theology is a different discipline called علم الكلام "Ilm-ul-Kalaam" which may be translated as theological theory.
Then he makes the important observation that all analysis can only be of indefinite and/or indeterminate evidence ظني الورود أو الدلالة. That is because matters that are definite are not debatable and their rulings are explicit and unambiguous. That means that the conclusion may be right or wrong, but the analyst gets a reward for his effort anyway.
There are conditions, or qualifications, for one to be an analyst مجتهد. He mentions the following:
Finally, he says that all of this is available to us today, and therefore, analysis should not stop and that we today can and should exercise analysis too.
|Page 1 of 1||All times are UTC|
|Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group