Reasoning of the Language of Jurisprudence and Law

The aim of the current study is to investigate the reasoning of the language of jurisprudence and law. In this regard, the validity of jurisprudence and legal propositions has been critically discussed; the issue whether or not the inclusion of jurisprudence
and law to credit perceptions and status and contractual themes leaves a room for knowledgeable, truthful and falsifiable linguistic statements. Then the possibility of making a logical argument and writing an inferential analogy in the field of jurisprudence and law has also been analyzed. The results depict that, although credit, contract, composition and settlement are the basis of rulings, laws and legal concepts, following such creditability, sharia and rational establishing, esp. in the rational and canonical condition, make credit facts exist. Therefore, in a way, these credits are considered real matters, Linguistic statements are true and falsifiable about real matters. Therefore, announcements and statements about credits are also true and false. As a result, rulings, laws and legal concepts might be true and falsifiable. Descriptive and statements in the field of jurisprudence and law are semantic and meaningful. It has the value of truth that its truth and falsity are certain and recognizable. Every legal system provides a "reality" about facts presented, and the truth and falsity of those propositions are subject to conformity with the reality of that legal system. In jurisprudential statement where a mandatory or conditional ruling and the validity and fakeness of Sharia is attributed to Islam and Sharia, what Sharia evidence is established on it, including the provisions and requirements of ijtihad evidence such as circumstantial evidence or presumption and valid suspicion (speculation). It also concludes jurisprudential evidence such as practical principles. According to the relevant evidence, the truth of the jurisprudential statement is verified. In fiqh (jurisprudence), there are different types of reasoning; some arguments focus on topics, and some on the rulings of those topics. Some are to reach the basic rules and some are to solve jurisprudential problems and issues. Arguments used in jurisprudence and principles include the following: Arguments which are based on manifestation and understanding the meaning of verbal evidence or based on the analysis of customary and rational concentrations, or inferential analogy and logical reasoning not based on rational manifestation and concentration. On the other side, there are some Arguments based on manifestation and receiving verbal proof or manifestation of Verses and Hadiths in jurisprudence and principles sometimes with a minor aspect, besides it is used to solve the problem of pride in jurisprudence and principles. Arguments based on customary and rational concepts are used in the two fields of thematic and ruling fields, in other words, minor and majors in the field of fundamental jurisprudence. Logical reasoning and rational inference with no relying on verbal expression and analysis of rational concentrations and ways are used both in the principles of jurisprudence, reaching at a general ruling. Inferential analogy and logical reasoning which are both the logical form of all jurisprudential and principled arguments. Therefore, jurisprudence and law are knowledge that relies on all kinds
of arguments. Legal, juridical and jurisprudential arguments are derived from the manifestation of laws, sources of religion and rulings, whereas the analysis of customary and rational concentrations. The language of jurisprudence and law is prone to authoring analogies, inferences and logical reasoning.