On the Identification of Intellectual Premises of Principles of Jurisprudence

Ambiguity in some useful propositions in principles of jurisprudence has caused disputes among osuli scholars. Searching in some osuli books, one may find out that some propositions by the majority of these scholars have been considered as “definite, intellectual, natural, and free from argumentation”.  On the other hand, some other scholars have raised doubts such propositions totally, which are reflected in the issue such as inexpressible indecency of punishment, the indecency of tajarri, manifest authenticity, and certitude authenticity. The point is that occasionally these two parties of the dispute are of the opinion that what they claim are taken for granted and they are sure about them. The question to be answered here is that what is the reason for such an odd disagreement? It is believed by the researchers of this paper that given such propositions are clearly stated, the origin for the disagreements is determined.  In the course of the research, the researchers have analyzed such unwritten rules governing the humanistic societies (general public requirements).Having differentiated the “individual requirements” from “general public requirements” and having delimited the “intellectual and rational rules”, the researcher have concluded that osuli propositions belong to social requirements and intellectual accounts whose wrong  mingling with individual intellectual rules have caused the aforementioned disputations.