| المستخلص: |
This paper attempted to answer the following: If a statement is made conditional upon and restricted by an attribute, would this conditionality and restrictiveness preclude other attributes? Or would it admit other attributes due to the possibility that the speaker failed to mention the exclusion of other attributes. To arrive at an opinion on this issue, the paper put forward the opinions of Islamic legal theorists. The first is the opinion of the proponents of mafhum al-sifa (implication of attribute) who maintain the concept's authoritativeness. According to them, when a statement is made conditional upon a certain attribute, this serves to identify and restrict the referent, excluding all others to which the attribute does not apply. Others hold an opposite opinion and reject the authoritativeness of mafhum al-sifa. They argue that a statement made conditional upon a certain attribute does not preclude other attributes due to the possibility that the speaker may have failed to mention their exclusion. The third and fourth opinions maintain that mafhum al-sifa may be authoritative in some circumstances and not in others. The paper gives preponderance to the opinion of the majority of scholars, the proponents of the concept, based on the principles of the Arabic language. This is evidenced by its implementation by linguists, Islamic scholars and even the laity. It was noted in the language and actions of the masses that when a statement is made conditional upon a certain attribute, that attribute precludes all others. Proponents of the authoritativeness of mafhum al-sifa have differed on whether the declared attribute is absolutely preclusive. Does it preclude other attributes whether or not they modify objects of the same genus as the referent? The practical effect of this issue is manifest in many branches related to this concept and in the interpretation of authoritative texts, the Quran and Sunnah.
|
