Associate professor of High School of Shahid Motahari
Abstract
In jurisprudence the decision of the jurisprudent about similarity of unknown and known decree regarding religious command because of their cooperation in reason is called analogy. Analogy in respect to its relation to the will of Lawgiver and legislator is divided in to analytical reasoning and explicit reasoning. The former is an analogy that the reason is not stated explicitly or implicitly, but the jurisprudent and jurist obtain it with inference. Then he analogizes the minor with the major because of their similarities. Shiite jurisprudent authorize the definite analytical reasoning analogy but most of them do not give authority to the conjectural analytical reasoning analogy, even though some of them have applied it in some legal issues and so do the jurists in the law of Iran.
Naghibi, D. S. A. (2009). Analytical Reasoning Analogy
in the Imamate Jurisprudence and in Law of Iran. Civil Jurisprudence Doctrines, 2(3), 19-38.
MLA
Dr. Seyyed Abulghasem Naghibi. "Analytical Reasoning Analogy
in the Imamate Jurisprudence and in Law of Iran". Civil Jurisprudence Doctrines, 2, 3, 2009, 19-38.
HARVARD
Naghibi, D. S. A. (2009). 'Analytical Reasoning Analogy
in the Imamate Jurisprudence and in Law of Iran', Civil Jurisprudence Doctrines, 2(3), pp. 19-38.
VANCOUVER
Naghibi, D. S. A. Analytical Reasoning Analogy
in the Imamate Jurisprudence and in Law of Iran. Civil Jurisprudence Doctrines, 2009; 2(3): 19-38.
)