نشریه مطالعات اصول فقه امامیه
پیاپی 6 (پاییز و زمستان 1395)

Criticizing views and thoughts does not necessarily mean rejecting or confronting them; in fact, a criticism is meant to study and evaluate the origins, dimensions and implications of an idea or viewpoint in a fair way. Naturally, just as interpreting and understanding those ideas and theories are dependent on certain principles and special rules, criticizing them also requires observance of certain procedures and framework without which the possibility of any critical confront would get reduced. The exact number and order of the rules which the methodology of criticism is based upon, can be dependent on the type of work and approaches. However, when it comes to criticizing the juridical opinions which generally derive from the Holy Quran and prophetic traditions, the first step is to have a clear understanding of the categorization of sciences into mentally-posited ( etibariat ) and existential ( takviniyat ). The next step is to understand the presuppositions and implications of the theories without which one would have an imperfect imagination of the nature of the work which is supposed to be criticized. As well, the criticizer must avoid mixing up the motivations and motives so that he may not end up falling into a personal dispute and may distance himself from being fair in all stages. In addition, criticizing a deduced juridical view depends on certain principles which can be identified through looking at the issues of Fiqh (jurisprudence).

This article studies the authoritativeness in respect of the signs ( amaraat ) on the basis of tanzil (lit. substitution), tanjis
(validation), tazir (presenting an excuse) and taqsim-e kashf (exploratory division) demonstrating the effects and implications of each one of these bases for the readers as well as explaining the position of Shaykh Ansari who believes that an amarah (sign) is nothing but a way leading to the reality or a mirror reflecting the truth of the matter and that it ( amarah ) should be treated as knowledge. On the contrary, late Akhund Khurasani is of the view that what is taken to be into consideration in respect of the amaraat is that they hold good and one can resort to them to justify himself or excuse himself. According to late Mohaqiq Naeini, the amaraat are meant to discard the possibility of something being the opposite of the signs and submitting oneself to what is very likely to be the truth. His view is better known as 'exploratory division' ( taqsim - e kashf ). These are the three theories which have been discussed by the writer who has preferred the third theory saying that narrations and normative conduct of the sensible people corroborate it completely and that the other views are not free from flaw and defect.

The methodology of the principles of jurisprudence ( Usul - e Fi qh ) aims to analyze and study the mechanism for studying the issues and subject-matters of the principles of jurisprudence; it elaborates on the method for discussion in this discipline. The methodology of the principles of jurisprudence, is a part of the "philosophy of Ilm al - Usul " which is a branch of 'added philosophy'. In Usul - e Fiqh of Ahl al-Sunnah, three major methods for analyzing and studying legal issues were identified and recognized: theoretical method (method of theologians); jurisprudential method (method of jurisprudents) and combined method. The most famous of these methods is the theoretical method which seeks to discuss, study and analyze legal theories or the issues regarding the principles of jurisprudence in a way which is characteristic of theologians. In this method, the issues of Ilm al - Usul are studied theoretically without being influenced by the secondary jurisprudential issues of the jurisprudential schools. Shafii is said to be the founder of this method and after him it was adopted by the Usuli schools of the Maliki, Hanbali, Zaheri and Mutazili sects. The analysis and study of the issues of Usul according to the jurisprudential method has been with a view to the secondary jurisprudential issues of the respective denomination. It is completely influenced by the secondary jurisprudential issues and the explication of the rules of jurisprudence in coherence with juridical details that have been transmitted from the leaders of the denominations. Some of the scholars of Ilm al - Usul , critically assessing the two foregoing methods, have attempted to present a third method which is a combination of those two methods for analyzing the issues of Ilm al-Usul.

Late Mustafa Khomeini is one of the upright and prominent jurists who was like a shining sun in various areas of Islamic sciences such as jurisprudence, principles of jurisprudence, hadith , biography, Quranic sciences, tafsir and so forth leaving behind invaluable works. Without doubt, there were but few people before the revolution who might not know him for his sublime thoughts and special views in the area of jurisprudence and its principles. In the principles of jurisprudence, he gave special attention to "the expediency of taking easy on the duty-bound" ( mas lahat - e tashil ). The expediency of taking easy is a suggestion made by contemporary scholars and it has gained rampant use among them. However, given the fact that 'the expediency of taking easy' is rooted in philosophical foundations of the principles of jurisprudence and that its effects appear on the principles which a Mujtahid may use to deduce Islamic laws, it must be exhaustive and wide-ranging but such a thing has been less often seen with them. Late Ayatollah Mustafa Khomeini is the leading scholar in terms of identifying the areas of presence and application of this theory. He has taken notice of such things which seem to have gone unnoticed by others. That is because late Mustafa Khomeini (ra) takes the discussion concerning the expediency of taking easy far beyond the authoritativeness of dhunun (conjectures and surmise) making use of it in all literal discussions, urgencies, practical rules, collective duties, optional obligations and many other areas.

Saheh (lit. correct) and aam (lit. more general) are among the topics studied and discussed in the books regarding the principles of jurisprudence. In fact, this topic is considered to be among the basics of literal discussion in the principles of jurisprudence; it seeks to explore the things for which the terms pertaining to acts of worship and transactions have been coined. The writer endeavors to conclude whether those words have been coined for the 'correct use' (saheh) or they are more general and can be used for both correct and incorrect uses. The writer tries to give an accurate explanation of the contended area and he has made efforts to contemplate on the benefits which have been attributed to it, and finally substantiate the fruitlessness of this discussion.

There are three main views about homonymous terms with disparate meanings or one word for different realities (ishtirak lafzi ): a) Homonymous terms with disparate meanings are impossible, b) homonymous terms with disparate meanings are not necessary, c) homonymous terms with disparate meanings are neither impossible nor is it necessary; rather it is something possible. In addition, there are some people who think that the use of one word for different realities is impossible in the Quran but it is possible elsewhere. Late Mohaqiq Khurasani believes in the possibility of homonymous terms with disparate meanings in the position of coinage of terms. He has also narrated and criticized the arguments associated with its necessity and impossibility, offering three reasons to substantiate its possibility. This study provides answers to relevant questions as well as reasons which prove the possibility of homonymous terms with disparate meanings.