Legal Cause, Effective Cause and Condition

Read-only question overview. Answers and scoring remain inside authenticated learner attempts.

• What is the core distinction in the opening maxim?
• Why does the definition of sabab specify an intermediary?
• Which statement best captures the role of a sign?
• After a stable gate is opened and an animal leaves by itself, what is the intermediary?
• Why is a preceding event not automatically the legal ʿillah of loss?
• When sabab and ʿillah are both present, what is the general rule?
• What explains the different outcomes in the two knife examples?
• In the classical example of pointing out property to a thief, which is the direct act?
• What chiefly distinguishes an outsider’s information from a custodian revealing entrusted goods?
• Someone in ihram points out game and another kills it. What is the separate basis for the first person’s liability?
• Why are driving an animal and opening its gate treated differently?
• Why can liability arise after a witness retracts testimony underlying a judgment?
• When may a sabab stand in for an ʿillah?
• Why can qualifying sleep serve as a proxy in the law of wudu?
• What follows from valid seclusion serving as a proxy?
• When subjective hardship varies, what provides the determinate criterion for a travel concession?
• What unifies sleep, valid seclusion and travel in this chapter?
• What does it mean to call an oath a cause of expiation figuratively?
• In the conditional divorce formula, how is entering the house classified?
• When can occurrence of a condition bring about its stated legal consequence?
• Which pair illustrates outward proxies for underlying realities?
• Why do retracted testimony and an animal’s independent exit not yield the same attribution?
• In a new case with a free human act between facilitation and harm, what should be examined first?
• Which inference incorrectly follows from sleep serving as a proxy?
• Why is “the sabab exists, so liability necessarily follows” incomplete?
• Which example particularly warns against treating an everyday “cause” as a technical ʿillah?
• When sabab and ʿillah coexist, attribution always goes to sabab without exception.
• A custodian’s prior duty can make revealing entrusted property different from an outsider’s information.
• Using travel as a proxy for hardship means every traveler experiences the same hardship.
• Occurrence of a condition always creates the ruling even if no valid governing legal arrangement exists.