بادِ صبا کا وعدہ کر کے اپنے ہاتھ میں
اُس نے ہمیں تھما د ی ہے طوفاں سی زندگی
The foundation of the Sharia is revelation, revelation is the name of two things, the Qur'an and the Sunnah, since both are related to the news, and to convey the news to others, narrators are needed, so for the propagation of the Qur'an and the Sunnah to future generations. It was necessary to have narrators, the narrators of the Holy Qur'an are called Qira, the narrators of the Sunnah are called Muhaddith, the traditions of the Holy Qur'an are called 'Qara'at' and the traditions of the Sunnah are called 'Ahadith'.
Both the Qur'an and the Sunnah are revelations, but still there are some differences between them which are explained in detail in the Book of Principles. It was a difficult task, and the significant efforts made by the Muhadditheen in this regard were more famous and campaigned than the knowledge of al-Qaraat and recitation. He became famous with this, and some people even got the wrong impression that he had nothing to do with jurisprudence, and this wrong impression was reinforced by the behavior of the some Narrators.
In reasoning and deriving from the Sunnah, there were many disorders and factors that gave birth to different schools of jurisprudence. For example, a hadith revealed to an imam or a jurist during reasoning has a hidden reason that is not revealed to anyone else. Therefore, there is a difference in argumentation. Similarly, sometimes the hadeeth is correct in a certain issue in front of a jurist, while on the other hand, it is weak in the opinion of another, which leads to diversity in argumentation.
When the jurists differed in the derivation of the issues and rulings, in fact, these are cases of priority and non-priority, in which there is, however, scope that any position can be declared preferred based on arguments.
Keywords: Hadith, Muhaddithin, Jurisprudential Proverbs, School of Thoughts, Differences.
Background: Breast cancer has become the leading cancer in women in both economically developed and developing countries, accounting for 25% of all cancers diagnosed worldwide in 2012. The cornerstone of breast cancer control remains early detection in order to improve outcomes and survival. Thus far the only breast cancer screening method that has proved to be effective is mammography. Although mammography is the mainstay of early detection, a fundamental limitation is its low inherent contrast difference between the soft tissue structures in the breast. Mammographic specificity relies on the ability to distinguish benign from malignant breast lesions based on their margins and morphological features. When breast malignancy presents with subtle mammographic features such as focal asymmetry, its specificity is reduced. Overall, the larger portion of false -negative mammograms comprises of cancers which are visible in retrospect as ‘minimal sign’ cancers. Additional imaging with ultrasound is useful to further characterize areas of mammographic focal asymmetry, and sonographic findings are used to determine the need for subsequent biopsy for histological confirmation. However, mammographic focal asymmetry has historically not been subjected to adequate follow up, and there is limited data in radiology literature regarding ultrasound findings in its evaluation. Objective: To determine the prevalence of suspicious ultrasound findings in patients with mammographic focal asymmetry. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study, whereby women presenting for mammograms at the Radiology Department with a mammographic descriptor of focal asymmetry (as per the American College of Radiology guidelines) and recommendation for additional imaging evaluation with breast ultrasound were consecutively recruited. The whole breast ultrasound images were evaluated for normal and abnormal findings, and allotted a final imaging assessment categorisation using the ACR Breast Imaging – Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS®) ultrasound lexicon. Ultrasound BI-RADS® 1-3 categories were assigned as benign findings, while ultrasound BI-RADS® 4 and 5 were assigned as suspicious findings. A total of 141 patients were enrolled. Analysis: Data collected were entered into a spreadsheet application (Excel for Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Corporation) and analysed using Stata® version 11.2. The proportion of suspicious ultrasound findings in mammographic focal asymmetries was calculated. Results: A total of 141 patients met the eligibility criteria during the study period and were enrolled into the study. The median age was 50 years, with a range of 31 to 79 years. The prevalence of suspicious ultrasound findings in patients with mammographic focal asymmetry was 7.1%. There was equal involvement of right and