alireza abedi sarasiya

Weakening the religion, which means a ruling or behaviour that makes religion look weak and frivolous in the eyes of society’s custom, is one of the titles that after the Islamic revolution was first seriously considered and cited in Imam Khumaynī’s fatwās. Then, in many issues, it is the basis and proof of contemporary fatwās, so that the prohibition of weakening the religion can be mentioned as a principle of jurisprudence. Weakening religion as a secondary has the capacity of planning in the form of a jurisprudential principle. However, not paying attention to the challenging effects of referring to weakening the religion in the process of jurisprudential inference has caused the use of weakening the religion in the process of jurisprudential inference to be accompanied by doubts. Using the descriptive and analytical method, this study aims to correctly explain challenges such as the incompatibility of the principle of weakening the religion with the principle of stability of rulings, or the contradiction of the necessity of firmness in the implementation of religious rules by applying the rule of weakening the religion, and also by the allocation of the majority of the results of the implementation of weakening the religion. With a scientific expression, it proved the non-contradiction of weakening the religion with the mentioned cases.

Although the Principle of Sovereignty (People have domination over their properties) is very well-known, some researchers, including Imam Khomeini, have cast doubt on it. They argue that this principle is not absolute and cannot be applied to the cases whose possession or permission for their possession is doubtful. Four aspects of the said principle have been studied in this article and through offering a fifth viewpoint attempts have been made to prove that the Lawgiver through stipulating the Principle of Sovereignty of owner over his property, has approved the qualitative and quantitative possession of the owner. However, this sovereignty is suspended and is subject to the cases that the Lawgiver, contrary to the Principle of Sovereignty of the owner, has not applied His sovereignty. One of the valuable results of this viewpoint in law and jurisprudence of transactions is that this principle plays a crucial role in the newly-emerged contracts for whose nullification there is no specific reason.

As a descriptive-analytical research deploying a library and documentary methodology, this study has mentioned the classifications of priority and has stated the problem of the study and has defined the key terms operationally. Finally, four types of priority have been distinctively presented:1. Custom or verbal priority which is divided into two kinds of enunciative and conceptual priority
2. Rationalistic or definitive priority. Certainty priority is also annexed to this type.
3. Consensus priority.
4. Speculative priority or analogical deduction
To investigate the conditions of the authority of priority reason, it was revealed that affairs such as “lack of disagreement of precept with generality, the rule with the primary principle” and “exclusiveness of the cause” do not matter in this regard, while the following are essential: 1) nullifying the features 2) proving the cause of precept 3) proving the perfectness of the cause 4) proving the existence of the cause in the secondary 5) proving the strength of the cause over the effect in the secondary. Studying the aforementioned factors revealed that among the types of priority, merely the speculative priority or the analogy of priority would be invalid. The main feature of this type is that it is speculative and there is no verbal realization in it.