Re-reading the preferences in case of conflict between the Shari'a rulings

When two legal addresses are not in conflict in the legislative stage, but in the implementation stage of the law, there is a contradiction between them, it is interpreted as conflict. The fundamentalists refer to antagonism as a form of retaliation. In their terminology, the contradiction between two rulings arising from the impossibility of combining the two in the position of obedience is called antagonism. The way out of antagonism is that if one of the two antagonizing precepts is preferable to the other, the intellect will give preference to it, otherwise the intellect 'ruling is a choice in doing one of two things. To express the criterion of preference, the fundamentalists have mentioned preferences such as having a substitute, giving conditionally to rational power over conditional to religious power, the priority of the important over the important and the temporal precedence, which will be examined in a descriptive and analytical manner and library tools. Took. The results indicate that the acceptance of the domain of these preferences by the fundamentalists is associated with differences.