Editing Jurisprudential Discourse: Principles and Guidelines

Abstract

This study aims to identify the reasons behind misattributing jurisprudential statements to their authors, and highlight essential ethical principles that govern the process of editing and rectifying juristic discourse, while establishing guidelines for scholars to accurately attribute statements to their rightful owners. For this purpose, the analytical and critical approach was adopted. The findings revealed that editing juristic legislative discourse entailed its affirmation accurately, and that most statements and opinions misattributions stemmed unintentionally from factors such as failure to document, reliance on intermediary sources, or ignorance of the process of revision by jurists. Key religious and ethical markers in editing included thorough investigation, precise attribution, moderation and balance, and disregarding scholars’ slip-ups. Correct attribution of jurisprudential discourse to its authors guidelines were established by scholars, in terms of understanding the meaning of juristic discourse, not considering a necessary discourse as a statement, distinguishing between the terminologies of early and later scholars, differentiating between the authority of juristic discourse and refutations, and avoiding generalizations in attributing statements. Unintended consequences in editing jurisprudential issues resulting from errors in attributing statements to their authors were highlighted.