Restriction of a General Term by Disaccording Implicature in Sunni Jurisprudence

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Assistant Professor, University of Kordestan

Abstract

Priority and precedence of the uttered (mantuq) over
implicature (mafhum) is a matter of consensus among
scholars. The very priority has caused a dispute
concerning restriction of a general term by disaccording
implicature (mafhum al-mukhalif). The dispute is
originated by weakness of restriction by disaccording
implicature. Disagreement in this connection is subject to
acceptance of authority of disaccording implicature. The
matter of dispute is two sentences of one speaker or some
speakers who are treated as one. Also, the implicature
opposing its own general must be authorized. Similarly,
there must not exist a proof which is stronger that the
disaccording implicature and prevents restriction. Majority
has accepted restriction, arguing that the disaccording
implicature is treated as the uttered; some of them
considering that restriction as juristic analogy while others
as lexical. On the contrary is the view of those who have
not accepted that restriction, arguing that the general is the
uttered and the uttered is of priority over the implicature.
The third group are those who have not preferred either of
the opinions. In the author’s opinion, however, view of the
majority which takes both proofs, i.e., the uttered and the
implicature, into consideration is preferable.

Keywords

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics