Formulating Expressions Denoting Generality in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries AH

Abstract

The importance of the research lies in its discussion of the controversy over the formulation of general expressions. It begins with a historical investigation of the context in which the issue arose, followed by an examination of the jurisprudential opinions that emerged on the matter, and finally a study of the jurisprudential considerations related to it. The research problem centers on the nature of the jurisprudential debate surrounding the formulation of general expressions, from which several questions arise: What is the historical context in which this issue arose? What are the opinions of the jurists on the issue? What are the points of agreement and disagreement between them? What is the evidence for each opinion? The research aims to study the historical context in which this issue arose, to clarify the opinions of the jurists and their evidence, and to explain the points of agreement and disagreement. The researcher will follow two methods: The descriptive method: to present the historical context in which the issue arose, followed by the presentation of the opinions of the jurists and the points of agreement and disagreement. The analytical method: to discuss and analyze the opinions of the jurists, to explain their implications, and to weigh them against each other. The research concluded with several results, including: The discussion of the issue began with Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari al-Baghdadi in Iraq, but it was not limited to it. The researcher did not find any mention of the issue or discussion of it in the works of the Hijaz and the Arabian Peninsula. Jurisprudence and theology books in Oman did not mention the issue of stopping at the expressions of generality. The meaning of generality is not denied in any of the opinions. Rather, the disagreement is about the instrument of carrying it, whether it is the apparent وضع of the expressions or other evidence that make them signify comprehensiveness and generality. The expressions of generality denote generality if there is evidence to support that. However, the disagreement between them is about what the words claimed to be general are based on in the absence of evidence. The researcher argues that the opinion of neutrality is not a legal school of thought, but rather an abstention from expressing an opinion and a disregard for Islamic texts