Effects of judgment to the great rules of jurisprudence

Abstract

Jurisprudence is closely related to the taxpayer in terms of clarifying the legal ruling for contemporary emerging issues after making the effort to achieve that, and since the jurisprudential rules are the outcome of that ijtihad, including the controls, branches and exceptions it contains for the implementation of those rules in applications that are renewed over time. Scholars had a share in making major rules with which most issues of jurisprudence revolve, and they were identified with five (things with their purposes, certainty does not go away with doubt, hardship brings facilitation, harm is removed, and necessities allow prohibitions). Therefore, it meant that I stand on the judgmental impact deduced from these rules by mentioning a contemporary jurisprudential issue and linking it to the legal aspect and clarifying that the ruling does not go beyond the limits of those rules, which are still a direct and indirect criterion for many of the rulings for newly developed transactions and a solution to many emerging problems. So my research consisted of an introduction and two chapters, one of which shows the meaning of the judgmental effect, and the other is related to the major jurisprudential rules with a question for each rule and to extract the effect of the judgment extracted from these rules.