1 Leave a comment on block 1 0

9 – الأفعال1

2 Leave a comment on block 2 0

فعل2 صاحب الشريعة لا يخلو إما أن يكون على وجه القربة والطاعة،3 فإن دل الدليل4 على الاختصاص يُحمَل على الاختصاص، وإن5 لم يدل لم يُخَصّ به،6 لأن الله تعالى قال (لَقَدْ كَانَ لَكُمْ فِي رَسُولِ ٱللهِ أُسْوَةٌ حَسَنَةٌ)،7 فيُحمل على الوجوب عند بعض أصحابنا، ومن أصحابنا من قال يحمل على الندب، ومنهم من قال يتوقف فيه.

3 Leave a comment on block 3 0

وإن8 كان على وجه9 غير وجه القربة والطاعة فيُحمل على الإباحة.

4 Leave a comment on block 4 0

وإقرار صاحب الشريعة على القول هو قول10 صاحب الشريعة،11 وإقراره على الفعل12 كفعله، وما فُعِلَ في وقته في غير مجلسه وعلم13 به ولم ينكره فحكمه حكم ما فعل في مجلسه.

5 Leave a comment on block 5 0


  1. This heading is included as part of the matn by both the Maḥallī and Ibn al‑Firkāḥ textual traditions. Spr. 601 has instead والأفعال . ↩
  2. Spr. 601 has instead وأفعال . ↩
  3. Al‑Juwaynī elegantly omits the أو clause that one expects to find in answer to an إما clause, and scribes rushed to supply the missing ‘or’ clause, which required them to then repeat the ‘either’ clause before proceeding. Thus Spr. 601 inserts here أو غيرها فإن كان على وجه القربة والطاعة . Lbg. 256 offers the same addition in the margin. Two of SH’s mss, Riyadh 5878 and Kuwait 231, insert simply أو لا . Al‑Maḥallī inserts أو لا يكون فإن كان على وجه القربة والطاعة as part of his commentary. ↩
  4. BM 3093 and SH have instead دليل . ↩
  5. Lbg. 256 has instead فإن . ↩
  6. Lbg. 256 and Spr. 601 both clearly say لم يخص به , which by conventional standards cannot be correct since the jussive that should follow lam should have a different consonantal form, لم يُخْصَصْ به . It seems most likely, however, that Ibn al‑Firkāḥ did indeed find this dubious form in his mutūn, and preserved it, for otherwise we must assume that the copyists of Lbg. 256 and Spr. 601 introduced identical corruptions of an unproblematic original, and, moreover, that other copyists invented a variety of corrections for a non-existent problem. BM 3093 has instead لا يخصّص به , SH has لا يختص به , and the Maḥallī tradition offers similar alternatives. In his Burhān al‑Juwaynī uses the verbal form يَختصّ به . ↩
  7. Q 33:21. ↩
  8. BM 3093 has instead فإن . ↩
  9. Spr. 601 and one of SH’s mss, Riyadh 5878, omit وجه . ↩
  10. BM 3093 and SH have instead كقول , but this is probably a later gloss. Al‑Maḥallī explicitly says (هو قول صاحب الشريعة) أي كقوله . Ibn al‑Firkāḥ likewise says كقوله in his own comments, but he is careful to identify this as his own phrasing. ↩
  11. In Lbg. 256 على القول هو قول صاحب الشريعة is a marginal addition. In Spr. 601 these words are missing entirely. This omission could easily have been made independently by different copyists, as these words closely resemble those that follow them. ↩
  12. U adds من أحد . ↩
  13. Spr. 601 has instead فعلم . ↩
Page 15

Source: http://waraqat.vishanoff.com/a/a9/