The Claim against Hanafis' Contradiction of Their Fundamentals Regarding Indications of Specific Terms: Fundamental Critique Study

Abstract

Objectives: The study attempts to clarify the importance of Hanafi's commitment to the indications of specific terms and to expound the branches of jurisprudence that are based on Fundamentalists' controversies. It also elucidates the indications of obligations and prohibitions, performance and making up, the unrestricted verses the restricted, meaningful particles with their importance and standards, and the claim that they contradict the Fiqh rulings.

Method: The study adopts three methods; namely: the descriptive method, the analytical method and the deductive method. It presents how fundamental matters characterize the indications of specific terms with reference to fundamentalists' writings; knowing and documenting their mathhabs in each and every matter under research. Their sayings are then analyzed and scrutinized for deducing results related to topic under research.

Results: The study shows a number of results; most important of which: Hanafis are committed to the indications of specific terms to their meanings since they are obvious in themselves with no need for further clarification. It also shows that solely reported sayings and analogy are not to be added to the specific term. Furthermore, the making up is as affirmed as the performance, the unrestricted is not to referred to the restricted unless under necessity, and the indications of meaningful particles are meaningfully definite.

Conclusions: Not locking oneself to reading only books of branches of Fiqh and only reasoning patrial evidences; instead, commitment to studying fundamental maxims when scrutinizing Fiqh controversial matters..