Restriction of a General Term by Disaccording Implicature in Sunni Jurisprudence

Priority and precedence of the uttered (mantuq) over implicature (mafhum) is a matter of consensus among scholars. The very priority has caused a dispute concerning restriction of a general term by disaccording implicature (mafhum al-mukhalif). The dispute is originated by weakness of restriction by disaccording implicature. Disagreement in this connection is subject to acceptance of authority of disaccording implicature. The matter of dispute is two sentences of one speaker or some speakers who are treated as one. Also، the implicatureopposing its own general must be authorized. Similarly، there must not exist a proof which is stronger that the disaccording implicature and prevents restriction. Majority has accepted restriction، arguing that the disaccording implicature is treated as the uttered; some of them considering that restriction as juristic analogy while others as lexical. On the contrary is the view of those who have not accepted that restriction، arguing that the general is the uttered and the uttered is of priority over the implicature. The third group are those who have not preferred either of the opinions. In the author’s opinion، however، view of the majority which takes both proofs، i. e.، the uttered and the implicature، into consideration is preferable.