The Mujtahid’s Duty: Evidence Hierarchy, Conflicts, and Revised Ijtihad

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

• Which source is consulted first for a new legal case?
• Which is the correct order of sources?
• What qualification governs the rule that opinion cannot replace a text?
• Why does Quranic legal investigation extend beyond direct wording?
• Can a new individual analogy simply displace established consensus?
• Why is private estimation not preferred to a qualifying report about the qiblah?
• What happens in the example where an upright informant identifies water as impure?
• What best characterizes taḥarrī?
• What is central in shubhat al-fiʿl?
• What is the key question in shubhat al-maḥall?
• What distinguishes doubt arising from evidence from private speculation?
• What distinguishes the first of the historical father-son examples?
• Why is the son’s belief treated differently in the reverse historical example?
• If two Quranic indications appear to conflict, what is the relevant next step?
• Which issue is illustrated by recitation and attentive-listening verses?
• What may assist preference when two Sunnah reports still appear to conflict?
• What is the relevant role of Companion reports here?
• Which statement correctly describes sound analogy relative to revelation?
• When two analogies conflict, what should the qualified jurist do?
• Why is tayammum used in the two-vessel example?
• Why is estimation used for the two uncertain garments?
• What does the difference between vessels and garments illustrate?
• What does taʾakkud al-taḥarrī bi-l-ʿamal signify?
• In the specific garment example, what happens when later estimation changes?
• How may a new qiblah estimate affect a future prayer?
• What is the overarching point of the garment and qiblah contrast?
• A mujtahid may abandon an applicable text merely because a private analogy suggests a different outcome.
• Shubhat al-maḥall and shubhat al-fiʿl are always the same kind of legal doubt.
• When two analogies conflict and no higher decisive evidence settles the matter, the jurist weighs them and follows the stronger.
• A new estimate automatically nullifies every earlier act carried out under a previous estimate.