New rulings on stoning the Jamarat - a comparative study

Abstract

The article deals with a topic that addresses the problem of the disagreement between the schools of jurisprudence regarding the new issues regarding stoning the Jamarat. The research emphasized the clarification of some important premises through which it is noted that most of those who fell into a state of confusion were as a result of not noticing these premises. Then the research delved into a detailed statement of the issue. By presenting the opinions and sayings of scholars of jurisprudential schools of thought and their evidence, along with analyzing them jurisprudentially using the method of jurisprudential reasoning, and concluding the research with a statement of the correct opinion.

The research contains three sections: The first section dealt with an explanation of some preliminary demands, the second section dealt with an explanation of the reality of the Jamarat, and the last section dealt with the opinions and sayings of the scholars of the jurisprudential schools of thought, and it contains two topics: the first: the opinions and sayings of the Imami jurists, and the second: the opinions and sayings of the jurists of the other schools of jurisprudence.

Thus, our research has corrected the path followed and guided specialists to the paths of guidance, from which we derive help and success.