The disagreement among Islamic jurisprudence scholars regarding the issue of the correct and the more general, and its impact on legal deduction

the chapter on acts of worship as a model

Abstract

Submission date: 13/10/2025

Acceptance date: 15/12/2025

Publication date: 30/12/2025

The derivation of legal rulings depends on fundamental principles, including the issue of validity and generality. Scholars have differed on this matter and its implications. Therefore, I have examined this issue to understand the true nature of this disagreement in two sections. In the first section, I addressed the meaning of validity and invalidity, clarifying that validity has only one meaning: completeness of its parts and conditions. Invalidity encompasses anything else. Other interpretations are based on differing scholarly objectives. The jurist's objective differs from that of the theologian, hence each defines validity differently according to their purpose. Furthermore, the terms used for acts of worship are specifically for valid acts, not for anything broader than validity or invalidity. In the second section, I addressed the conception of a commonality and the outcome of the dispute. I demonstrated that all attempts to define a commonality in both opinions are incorrect because they rely on an external commonality between individual instances. The correct view is that the commonality between externally distinct instances is conceptual. As for the outcome of the dispute—namely, the validity of the general principle of permissibility for the individual in the general case, while the valid principle of precaution applies to the general principle of permissibility—this is incorrect. The principle of precaution applies to both opinions, and therefore, the dispute has no practical consequence.