أثر استعمال الفقهاء لفظي الفاسد والباطل في المعاملات على الفروع الفقهية

Abstract

This research deals with the difference between the corrupter and the false in a jurisprudential manner in which the researcher assumes what appears to him after investigation and reasoning. This research aims to clarify the meaning of the corrupter and the false. It also aims to address the differences between jurists and theologians based on the definition, and clarifying the difference between the corrupter and the false in transactions according to the four schools of thought explaining the impact of this on the branches of jurisprudence.

I divided this research into an introduction and two sections , and divided each section into topics. The first section is in explaining the meaning of the corrupter and the false: under it are two topic : The first topic : the linguistic meaning. The second topic: the terminological meaning. The second section includes the difference between the corrupter and the false according to the four schools of thought. Underneath it are three topics: The first topic: The difference between the corrupter and the false in transactions. The second topic: The impact of the difference between the public and the Hanafis in establishing the difference between the corrupter and the false in transactions. The third topic: The extent to which both the public and the Hanafis adhere to their approach in terms of distinguishing between the corrupter and the false, and the lack thereof in transactions.

Findings: The researcher came up with a number of results, including: The linguistic meaning of the corrupter and the false is that they are not synonymous. Their technical meaning is: the two-faced act violates Sharia law. The Hanafis agree on the distinction between corruption and falsehood in transactions, unlike the majority, and this disagreement is moral. The effect of the difference in the branches of jurisprudence attests to the fact that both the Hanafis and the majority have differed from their approach regarding corruption and falsehood due to jurisprudential considerations.