REEMPLOYING THE DISCOURSE OF FAITH IN PRESENTING MANDATORY RULINGS. A CRITICAL STUDY OF THE BEHAVIOR OF DEALING WITH LEGAL RULINGS

Abstract

The research aims to shed light on the methodology of the discourse of faith in presenting the evidence of rulings, and to re-employ it in our time when explaining the obligatory rulings for creation, or in teaching them to students, as it is noted that most of the legal evidence takes on a faith-based color in the context of its presentation of the rulings, where the researcher stood through the inductive approach. The analysis uses a unique methodology in dealing with legal rulings and dealing with them, which is based on combining the discourse of the mind with the jurisprudential meaning, and the discourse of the heart with the meaning of faith, so that the discourse of faith reinforces the practical requirements of the ruling and supports adherence to them. The importance of the research is demonstrated by defining the methodology of revelation and its use of the discourse of faith in presenting the rulings, and highlighting the most important negatives resulting from limiting ourselves to the fundamentalist stereotype in presenting the obligatory rulings away from the discourse of faith. The research concluded in its results that adopting the methodology of revelation in combining persuading minds with evidence and addressing hearts with faith achieves the objectives of the legal ruling, strengthens the obligation of the person responsible for the obligatory rulings and surrender to them, and addresses the stagnation that occurs in our time in dealing with the rulings and trying to circumvent or evade them, as it contributes Ultimately, it reduces the gap between doctrinal faith and practical jurisprudence in the behavior of those charged with . The researcher recommended tracking the faith and moral discourse in the evidence of revelation and observing its impact on adherence to the obligatory rulings.