Search

This paper aims to study a group of complicated articles in the principles of Islamic jurisprudence that Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyyah dealt with and directed, after reviewing his work thoroughly, the selection fell on four articles, which are: Al-Samaniyah’s article on limiting the perceptions of knowledge to the senses, the article of the majority of the scholars of the principles of Islamic Jurisprudence on the scarcity of the overall memorized text, the article of Al-Shāfiʿī and Ahmad regarding the negation of abrogation of the Qur’an for the Sunnah, And Al-ʿAnbari’s article on correcting every Mujtahid (the one giving an independent reasoning). The paper dealt in each article with three issues: its origin, the point of its complication, and Ibn Taymiyyah’s treatment of it. In studying the articles presented, the researcher adopted the critical analytical approach. This paper concluded that: the distinction of al-Taimi’s work due to the wide reading of articles, and a thorough critic in dealing with the articles at the level of authenticating, reviewing and directing, addressing the complicated issues that the scholars are less exposed to, with the investigation of Ibn Taymiyyah's directives to these articles. The study recommended careful reviewing of articles in this field, investigating their issues, and treating them according to the correct approach, giving observations and correcting them according to contemporary studies, and urging for extensive writing in this field according to Ibn Taymiyyah and other critics of the scholars of this discipline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Judgment of consensus denial is a critical fundamentalist research. " Who denied the consensus is nonbeliever" is a phrase widespread between scholars and jurists where is the one who agreed, others were opposed, others elaborated on it, and there were who hesitated and worried. For that concern, this research paper studies the judgment of consensus denial to obtain a result . The research paper presents a brief introduction, outlining the meaning of the consensus, its authenticity, and whether it was indicative or subjunctive connotation. In addition, it presents the elements of consensus, conditions, sections, and types. The paper displays the judgment of consensus denial whether the denial is based on its authenticity or judgment and whether that consensus is indicative or subjunctive. It displays the sayings of the fundamentalists of the four religious’ schools of Islamic jurisprudence in this, as well as with the examples thereof . The research concluded that consensus is either indicative or subjunctive. The subjunctive consensus, there is hardly one who rejected its denier. As for indicative consensus was vary, there was a consensus that it is a necessity, and those who denied the consensus are nonbelievers for most of the fundamentalists for its consecutiveness. Most of the disagreement is focused on this type. The opinion of a group of fundamentalists, such as al-Amidi, Ibn al-Hajib, Al-Juwayni, and others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]