جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "coinage" در نشریات گروه "فقه و حقوق"

The discussion concerning the use of a word in more than onemeaning is one of the important topics of Ilm al-Usul, as well asconsidered to be one of the practicable,useful discussions injurisprudence,legal theories. In a part of the discussion dealingwith the juridical benefits of the topic, examples of such uses injurisprudence have been mentioned. Generally speaking, two veryimportant notions,approaches are noteworthy in this regard. Somescholars permit the use of one word in more than one meaning whileothers are of the view that it is impossible. The argument offered bythose who forbid the use of one word in more than one meaning isbased on reason while those who allow such a use argue that theArabs have practically used one word in more than one meaning.What is important is that the clue,main point in the topic is tounderstand the reality of the use,the relationship between oneword,another. The existing dispute revolves around the sameissue. Therefore, understanding the nature of the usage of a word andthe relationship between the word,its meaning can help untie theknot,resolve the dispute.

This article seeks to study certain rules that demonstrate that the meaning of the text is dependent largely on how much a text is vivid and clear in its purport and signification. These rules include the "Rule of Coinage (invention of new words)" the relationship between words and their meanings being mentally-posited, the rule of the signification of words based on their outward and surface meaning and the rules of the authoritativeness of the apparent meanings of words. These rules which are corroborated by logical and rational reasons and are based on logical hierarchy show that text is not silent, and that to consider a text as silent is a groundless attitude, rationally and logically uncorroborated. Furthermore, to consider a text as silent amounts to overlooking the inalienable linguistic rule i.e. the rule of coinage, and in a broader sense, it amounts to ignoring the social aspect of the language. This research is based on textual sources and has been organized in a descriptive – analytical way.

Paying attention to the lingual analysis of the legal concepts and propositions is one of the most important sections studied in philosophy of law. The nature of the science of law necessitates its intermingling with words; law, contract, verdict, legal authorship, all have to be put into words to be understood and executed. The first stage of understanding a text or a speech – including a legal proposition – is to understand its meaning. Thus, this research seeks to find a semantic pretext for legal propositions. There is much material in this respect in analytical philosophy and the science of semantics, which has helped legal experts have better understanding of law. Nevertheless, Iranian legal logic and principles of law have been adopted from the principles of jurisprudence. The legal theorists (uṣūlīs) have proposed many discourses on the meaning of legal terms and the relation between words and meanings. Concerning the relation between a word and its meaning, it is opined that this relation is essential and conventional. Similarly, most of the legal theorists consider the object or dependant (muta‘allaq) of the meaning of non-conventional words as rational nature or percipient. Acceptance of any of these approaches has a direct impact on the legal experts’ attitude towards law, particularly in exegesis (tafsīr).