أخطاء أصولية لابن السُبكي في كتابه جمع الجوامع عند الزَلمي (دراسة تحليلية مقارنة)

This study discusses the fundamentalist comparison in fourteen fundamentalist views of Ibn al-Sabki in his Ja'aa AL-Jwame'a, which was criticized by al-Zalmi as fundamentalist errors. In the first chapter: The research began translating the lives of the two. savant, and then a brief description of their books to know their scientific status and knowledge of their specialization in science. In the second chapter, the comparative research discusstion in the first case concerning the definition of Islamic jurisprudence and proved that its set of legitimate rulings, rather than the knowledge of them, what was chosen by Ibn al-Sabki before the eighth century AH was correct at the time. The research proved that the definition of Ibn al-Sabki was not comprehensive, Because he mentioned the commissioning and did not mention the situation, The research discussed the mistake of Ibn al-Sabki saying "The Mu'tazil governed the mind" because they did not rule exept the Creator, The research proved that the perpetrator was forced to murder, contrary to Ibn al-Subki's,The research proved that the term of the switch used by al-Zalmi was more valid than the term change in the determination and the permition, The research proved the validity objection of general definition for Al-Zalmi's than Ibn al-Sabki, as the genral it did not include the mental and customary. In the third chapter: research has proved that the specification is not the limite the genral on some of its members, but is the limite genral rule on some of its members, The research took the previous versions of the legitimate which Ibn al-Subki did not mention. The research proved al-Zalmi's evidence that it is not permissible to supersede the Qur'aan by unilateralism Suna, and not occur frequently, The research proved the validity of Zalmi's opinion that the provisions of the legitimate include provisions in the news It is not permissible to say the words by superseding them, The research proved the error of Ibn al-Sabki, saying that it is permissible to supersede the Qur'aan by analogy. The research discussed the matters of the sections of the Qur'an supersede in terms of the superseded, confirming the validity of al-Zalmi's view that the Qur'aan should be superseded only in ruling and reading, and that the superseded one should be deleted, As the research proved the correct of al-Zalmi said that the common problem between the AL-Makees and AL-makees-Aleehi is not always equal, since it is permissible for the ruling to be stronger in the AL-makees and may be less. By discussing these issues and comparing them with fundamentalist views and doctrines, the research proved the validity of Al-Zalmi's objections in all the matters referred to, and we can only apologize on behalf of Ibn al-Sabki.