| 520 |
|
|
|a
|b In the first section, this study aims to exposit the origins of the issue of lexical disparities. It elucidates the true nature of these contrasts by expositing the conditions that are taken into account when establishing a real difference [in meaning] and which revolve around the consolidation of an-nisba al-hukmiyya [a signifier’s relation to the signified]. It further seeks to clarify the underlying reasons for the presumption of such differences and which may be summarized as follows: the presumption of an-nisba al-hukmiyya, not understanding the purport of the words, and augmenting terminology and structures. The study then proceeds to exposit the nature of lexical disparities, the methods for their recognition, and the stance of legal theorists towards them. The researcher attempts to define lexical disparity as differences in expression for an agreed upon meaning. The study reaches the conclusion that the two main methods that determine lexical differences are: a disparity between a signifier’s relationship to the signified and differences pertaining to designation and terminology while asserting the consensus of advocates of both methods on a single meaning. The study also concludes that the non-emergence of a juristic difference as a consequence of such lexical disparities does not evidence that the difference is simply lexical in nature but rather serves to confirm that the only two methods outlined above may explain lexical disparity. \ The second section of the study explores the stance of Sheikh Mohammed Bikheet al-Muti'i towards the issue of lexical disparities by expositing his opinion on the reasons leading to such differences, the methods he depended upon to establish them and his stance on the issue of a lack of a juristic difference and whether this signifies that the difference is lexical in nature. The study shows his agreement with legal theorists in this respect. The paper then discusses matters on which Sheikh Mohammed, in light of opinions of previous scholars, contends that a given difference is merely lexical in nature. The conclusion reached is that the methods used to prove lexical incongruencies are two: differences in scholarly opinions due to the disparity of the signifier’s relation to the signified, and differences due to designation and terminology. Each section was further divided into three sub-sections: a discussion of matters on which he agreed with other scholarly opinions [that the difference is lexical], matters on which he weighed the different positions and deemed one stronger, and matters on which he -apart from others- maintains that the difference is lexical. In addition, a further section comprises matters related to the issue in question and consists of reconciling between expressions used by scholars that appear to denote lexical differences, and consolidating scholarly opinions on this issue in an attempt to limit the plurality of opinions on a single matter.
|
