An Analysis of the Causes of the Differences of Jurists’ Viewpoints in Jurisprudential Subjectology with an Emphasis on the Issue of Absence

The difference in the views of the jurists in recognizing the religious ruling is one of the most important areas of disagreement. This diversity of theories has emerged in the recognizing jurisprudential subjects in different positions, including the issue of absence. The viewpoints of the jurists through some brokerage analysis, adoption of foundations in the evaluation of textual documents and differences in role identification and custom arbitration, as well as accepting or not accepting the position of verbal viewpoints, have led to not reaching a precise definition of the subject and, in the next stage, to a disagreement in deriving the religious ruling. Based on the descriptive, analytical and exploratory method, this article has analyzed the arguments for the difference of the jurists’ viewpoints on absence. The finding suggests that the field of subjectology or the ruling does not have a desirable achievement and the role of some jurists must be rethought, and in this regard, the correct identification of the criteria for understanding the subject is effective in reducing the disagreements and achieving the same results.