Constructing Evidence Based on Two Premises among Theorists of Islamic Jurisprudence: A Study in Elucidating the Cause of Disagreement

Abstract

This study investigates the origin of the discrepancy among Islamic jurisprudence thinkers regarding the construction of evidence based on two premises. I have delineated the locus of disagreement in the issue as strictly limiting the construction of evidence to two premises only. The disagreement is divided into two schools of thought: some believe that constructing evidence does not depend solely on two premises, while others hold that it does depend only on two premises. After all, I have explained why there is dispute in this case, and it all comes down to one thing: the legal definition of proof. This explanation has to do with the foundational ideas of jurisprudence. The study ends with a number of recommendations, such as carrying out a thorough investigation to define evidence in jurisprudence, contrasting it with the definition in logic, and examining the proof offered by academics who endorse the use of two premises in the construction of evidence. It also recommends studying the jurisprudential rules related to constructing evidence and their impact on legal arguments. May Allah grant success.