ملخص الدراسة:

This study examines inconsistencies of mujtahids [diligents] in jurisprudence, i.e. Jurisprudential contradiction or contradiction of mujtahids. This study not only tries to uncover what happened to mujtahids in terms of contradiction by giving examples, but also it tries to refer to its kinds. The study identifies ten kinds of contradictions, namely: mujtahids combine irregularities, they differentiate between similar things in judgment, they judge in the same issue with two different opinions, they do not adopt one basis, they convert the same judgment in two issues, they introduce a saying and do not work accordingly, they offer two different reasons for the very same judgment, they offer a reason and then recognize a judgment despite non-existence of such a reason, they offer a reason and then say there is no judgment despite the availability of such a reason, they offer reasoning for a judgment and then say that it was at contradictory to Qiyas [deductive analogy], they offer reasoning for a judgment and then say that it is devotional, and finally they contradict in preferences. 1 .

توثيق المرجعي (APA)