The question about the nature of the relationship between jurisprudence and ethics in the atmosphere of the interrelated interaction of the Islamic sciences sometimes leads to some contradictory and dissimilar theories. These can all be categorized into four groups, which regard unity and unanimity, conflict and inconsistency, inclusion of ethics in jurisprudence, and distinction and dependency. These then can be evaluated.
Through adoption of an analytical-comparative method with an emphasis on equality of the two foregoing phenomena, the present study set out to examine the favorability of the aforementioned four categories, which resulted in finding support for the theory of distinction based on agreement and dependency.
The main basis of the study is identifying the distinctive features of the 8 cardinal principles of jurisprudence and ethics. Different dimensions of these will be discussed in a case by case manner, including status, nature of knowledge, topic, the argument system, realization conditions, goals, scope, and method are the main distinctive features of these two Islamic sciences that will be talked over.
A report on the asymmetrical and agonizing development of the knowledge of ethics in its historical and intellectual origin compared to its long-lasting companion, i.e. jurisprudence, as well as enumeration of some of their basic similarities are among other related and effective discussions of the article.
Mohammadi, M. (2016). distinction and dependency
The relationship between jurisprudence and ethics. Religious Researches, 12(2), 367-388. doi: 10.22059/jorr.2016.58989
MLA
Moslem Mohammadi. "distinction and dependency
The relationship between jurisprudence and ethics", Religious Researches, 12, 2, 2016, 367-388. doi: 10.22059/jorr.2016.58989
HARVARD
Mohammadi, M. (2016). 'distinction and dependency
The relationship between jurisprudence and ethics', Religious Researches, 12(2), pp. 367-388. doi: 10.22059/jorr.2016.58989
VANCOUVER
Mohammadi, M. distinction and dependency
The relationship between jurisprudence and ethics. Religious Researches, 2016; 12(2): 367-388. doi: 10.22059/jorr.2016.58989
)