The Problem of Balancing Between What is More Prudent And What Is Easier

Abstract

The research revolves around a fundamental question in jurisprudential preference, which is: In the event of a conflict between precaution and facilitation: Does the more cautious prevail, or does the easier prevail, and what are the controls in that?! This principle is considered one of the most important issues of legal weighting, on which various ruling results are based, and it is clear that people are divided into two extremes and a middle in this matter. The study aimed to balance between the two options to come up with traditional and mediating principles to solve this problem. The research was divided into an introduction to the concepts and three sections: The first: Concerning the disagreement regarding preferring what is more prudent and what is easier. The second: in discussion and weighting between statements. The third: in applications among the ancients and contemporaries. The most important results of the research were: setting controls to balance between strictness under the pretext of precaution, or leniency under the pretext of facilitation, and recommending increased consideration of calamities in which weighting was based on the two principles; To come up with rulings that take into account the glorification of Sharia law, and not exceed reality.

Keywords: Comparison, Preference, Precaution, Easiest.