The Causes for Variations in the Jurisprudential Definitions

Abstract

This research aims to elucidate the causes behind the multiplicity of foundational jurisprudential definitions, highlight the issues this multiplicity creates, and propose solutions to mitigate these problems. The methodology employed was inductive, descriptive, analytical, critical, and historical. The study concluded with several significant findings: that jurisprudential schools and creedal approaches have not impacted the foundational structure, despite arising from it; the variety of definitions stems from multiple factors, including the relationship between foundational schools and jurisprudential schools, creedal approaches, variations in general school, differences in the creedal approach, the distinction in the doctrinal position regarding the defined subject, cognitive structure, the objective of authorship, and the methodology of crafting definitions.

Furthermore, the research identifies several problems resulting from the multiplicity of definitions, such as confusion among learners, reliance on unsuitable curricula, and the risks of unauthorized fabrication or inaccurate transmission. To address these issues, the study recommends analyzing foundational definitions in light of jurisprudential schools, foundational schools, creedal approaches, and variant interpretations to avoid contradictions and conflicts; and categorizing foundational definitions.

Among the practical recommendations are the importance of studying definitions and their formulation according to scientific principles, organizing training courses on this subject, incorporating this aspect into the research curriculum at both the master's and doctoral levels, and ensuring undergraduate students are not excluded. Other suggestions include undertaking studies on the significance of standardizing terminology across sciences or agreements to prevent disputes and conflicts, and examining the impacts of differences in definitions among scholars on understanding.