Usool Al Fiqh- Lesson 19 Conflict between the Evidences

1. Usool Al Fiqh- Lesson 19Conflict between the Evidences Between the securing evidences Between the practical (procedural) principles Between the securing evidence and the practical principle

2. Between the securing evidences • The meaning of a conflict or contradiction between the evidences is that their implications are mutually incompatible. This type of conflict are in several types: • Between two Religious evidence • Between Religious and rational (logical) • Between two rational evidences

3. Between two Religious verbal evidence • When ever the evidences are clear, strong, and definite, the conflict is impossible, they both fall down and we seek the practical principles (USOOL AMALIYA). And when ever they can be combined together, then a complete indication is deduced by combining them together, and there are rules of combination, which are called convention conciliation (ALJAM AL-URFI) , such can be observed in 3,4 & 5 from the following cases, where evidences can be combined.

4. 5 cases of conflict between the verbal evidences: • It is impossible to conceive two clear explicit strong verbal evidences conflicting each other, because it leads to the contradiction of the Infallible (AS) which is impossible. • If a clear strong verbal evidence conflicts the verbal evidence which has two possible meanings literal and metaphorical, or explicit and implicit or apparent and non-apparent meaning, then the clear evidence is a clue of context which diverts the meaning from the explicit or literal or apparent to the non-apparent or metaphorical meaning, and the conflict is resolved. Example: It is permissible for a fasting person to immerse his head in the water, another statement: Do not immerse your head under water while fasting. The Phrase DO NOT has two possibilities one is Haraam another is Makrooh. So this DO NOT will be taken as MAKROOH or abominable and not forbidden.

5. 3- Subject of the clear verbal evidence is more specified and more restricted than other evidence: • Example: The Loan Interest (usury)is forbidden, and in another statement: The Loan Interest between the father and son is permitted. The jurist always exempts the specific or the restricted indications before taking the general indication or the absolute indication. 4- The conflict between a general legislation or ruling (HOKM) and the legislation restricted with subject (MOWDHOO), the later overrules (HAAKIM) the first case (MAHKOOM): HAJ is an obligation every Muslim, and HAJ is obligated on a person who has the ability. 5-Two verbal evidences were not clear and could not be combined, then both should be rejected. ( and refer to USOOL AMALIYA-Practical rules)

6. Other cases: • Definite clear explicit verbal evidence with the definite rational evidence: Impossible because it leads to Contradiction of Infallible to the logical concepts, this concept has been confirmed by reality and practically. • Verbal evidence and non-verbal evidence: Verbal precedence non-verbal. • A verbal evidence which has explicit (apparent) and implicit (non-apparent) meaning, with a definite logical evidence, Both are combined and the implicit meaning of the verbal is taken, and the rational or logical evidence is considered clue of context. (People looking at their lord) • It is logically impossible to have two non-verbal definite evidences conflicting each other.

7. Between the practical (procedural) principles (USOOL AMALIYA) • The conflict which can be discussed here is the one between BARAA (freedom from obligation) and ESTISHAAB (extension pf previous certainty). • Example: While fasting the day of the holy month, one doubts that’s that does the obligation of fasting continues after the sunset, until the disappearance of the eastern redness in the Horizon or not?

8. ESTISHAAB predominates BARAA • The doubt is in the obligation of fasting between the sunset and the disappearance of the Eastern redness, so is this extra part of the day included in the obligation of fasting or not? There are two opinions: • Since the doubt is in the continuation of the previous obligation, the ESTIHAAB will obligate the continuation of fasting in that extra part. • The obligatory part is definitely until the sunset, and the doubt here is a basic and primary doubt for the extra part, that means we implement BARAA here and provide freedom of obligation for this extra part, i.e. a person can break his fast immediately after sunset and he doesn't require to wait fro the disappearance of the eastern redness. • Condition of Estishaab exists, so it is implemented.

9. Between the securing evidence and the practical principle • Such conflict is inconceivable , because if an evidence exists then there is no requirement for the practical principle. • The solitary narration of the trusted and the BARAA, also cannot conflict, though the narration of trusted one is also a speculative evidence, and might not indicate knowledge by reason, but the Islamic legislator have considered it as an indicator of knowledge and it is called (EMAARA), and EMAARA predominates the practical principles.

10. Example: • Although EMAARA logically give a larger possibility, but it becomes strong with the support of Islamic legislator (SHARE’), and it becomes a securing evidence. • Can a fasting person immerse his head under the water? • BARAA (exemption) indicates yes, no obligation. • The narration of trusted by the Infallible (AS) indicates NO. • So NO will predominate YES, because The EMAARA predominates the USOOL (Practical Principles)