Sometimes there comes a pronoun after a common [individual], which has apparently been used as the object of a legal decision (ḥukm), and by means of external evidence, the certainty is achieved that this pronoun refers to some common individuals. Then, the question arises as to whether reference of the pronoun to some common individuals would cause its designation or the common generality continues to be valid. In their encounter with the two manifestations existing in the issue, the uṣūlīs (legal theoreticians) have mainly presented three different theories, each one of which brings up a specific jurisprudential corollary: 1. Priority of iṣālat al-umūm (principle of generality) and dominion over pronoun, 2. Abandoning iṣālat al-umūm and asserting the inapplicability of utilization, 3. Theoretical standstill and practical reference to the principles of practice.
The present writing explains and examines different views with a comparative study and in eventually approves the second view.
)
Send comment about this article