Abstract

Inference by lack of evidence for non-judgment and accompanying the nothingness is one way of an absence of a legitimate government that is talked about fundamentalists; they are two similar and ambiguous paths. This research aims to clarify the relationship between them based on the following two questions: what the relationship between the accompanying nothingness and the inference is by lack of evidence for non-judgment and whether it is a synonym or difference. If the type of relationship between them is variance, what the difference is between them. In this study, the analytical inductive method was adopted. It was divided into two sections, in the first of them; I spoke about the concept of inference by lack of evidence for non-judgment and the idea of accompanying the original nothingness. Then I separated the talk about the relationship between them and I clarified what disagreementis in it. In the result, İ concluded that the relationship between these two concepts is a difference. The difference between them is that accompanying nothingness was the negation of the ruling in it before the Shariah as evidenced by the mind. Then I judges that it is sustainable and remains after the Shariah because there is no changer. As for the inference by lack of evidence, we do not look at the previous negation. Rather, we look at the necessity of the legal evidence for the legal ruling because it does not prove a legal ruling without evidence. If the necessary, which is the evidence, is negated, the obligatory, which is the ruling, must be compensated. I also concluded that although they are different, they are compatible in the field of negation; we mean that every annulment of every legal ruling is based on one of them may be based on the other.