| Abstrakt: |
The way in which kur and qalil water become impure has a significant impact on human daily life. There are various and conflicting narrations regarding this matter. Two methods have been proposed to resolve the conflicts and reach a final ruling in this regard. According to the well- known method of assessing conflicting evidence, five different and sometimes conflicting rulings have been obtained on the issue mentioned, and the conflict between the extracted rulings is a problem for this group of jurists. However, according to the theory of proportional revolution, there are more than ten different types of probability assessments between the evidence, each of which leads to different results. Therefore, the problem with this method is the preference of one of the proportional assessments over the others. However, it is possible to overcome this problem by using the rules extracted for the preference of different proportional assessments, and the result of accepting the theory of proportional revolution has been well demonstrated in the branch of jurisprudence discussed. Therefore, in the present study, by analyzing and comparing three proposed models in one of the jurisprudential branches entitled the impurity of kur and qalil water, we have demonstrated the differences between the mentioned methods and for the first time systematically aligned it with the theory of proportional revolution and revealed the surprising results of this type of assessment between conflicting evidence. The impurity of qalil water in case of changing one of the three attributes and the lack of impurity of kur water, except in the case of changing the title of water, are among the results of this method. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
