جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "ijtihad" در نشریات گروه "علوم انسانی"

This article examines the role of insight (Basira) in the process of ijtihad and the derivation of Sharia rulings, evaluating its impact on the accuracy and validity of fatwas. Insight, as a mental and spiritual attribute, assists scholars in understanding religious texts beyond their apparent meanings and enables them to derive rulings aligned with the objectives of Sharia, considering the circumstances of time and place. The study first explores the concept of insight from a jurisprudential perspective, analyzing the views of past and contemporary jurists regarding its significance in ijtihad. It then assesses the impact of insight on the accuracy of fatwas by examining examples from contemporary issues, such as Islamic banking and new financial transactions. The findings indicate that insight directly influences the quality of issued fatwas and helps prevent extremism and laxity in religious rulings. Additionally, insight aids jurists in distinguishing between the superficial appearances of texts and the deeper purposes of Sharia, allowing for the issuance of comprehensive and practical rulings for modern challenges. Finally, recommendations are presented for enhancing insight within religious seminaries and educating future jurists. These suggestions include promoting the teaching of insight to students, conducting comparative research on fatwas, and further encouraging the application of insight in addressing new issues. This research concludes that strengthening insight among scholars can improve the ijtihad process and contribute to the development of Islamic jurisprudence in response to contemporary challenges.

This article examines the fundamental role of insight (Basirat) in the process of Ijtihad and the derivation of Fiqh rulings within Shia jurisprudence. Given the rapid social changes and technological advancements, jurists face new challenges that require a deeper understanding and insight beyond traditional interpretations. Insight, as a form of spiritual enlightenment, enables the jurist to look beyond the apparent texts of religious scriptures to grasp the objectives and spirit of Sharia. In this research, after introducing the concept of insight and reviewing the perspectives of both contemporary and classical jurists on the subject, a comparative analysis of deduction methods in various Shia legal schools is conducted with an emphasis on the role of insight. The findings indicate that insight not only contributes to a deeper understanding of divine rulings but also plays a pivotal role in addressing new issues and offering innovative legal solutions. The importance of insight in preventing misinterpretations and deviations from the correct path of Ijtihad is also emphasized. Finally, suggestions for future research on strengthening insight in the process of Ijtihad and the derivation of rulings are presented.

The interpretative insights and ijtihad of the companions of the Prophet Mohammad (Peace Be Upon Him and His Progeny) hold significant importance; however, their authoritative role in the realm of exegesis is a subject of debate. Accepting their opinions as authoritative could allow them to be used as evidence for interpreting the divine intent, similar to Prophetic traditions. Existing studies, mainly within jurisprudential and usuli sources, suggest a distinct conceptual system with specific principles and evidence, which are often overlooked, especially in the context of exegesis. Therefore, both proponents and opponents face challenges such as insufficient clarification of the issues and lack of thorough examination of the principles and evidence. This article uses an analytical method to first explain the aforementioned issues and then critiques them, concluding that the theory of authority lacks a solid basis and sufficient evidence. The article critiques principles such as the primacy of the authority of presumed knowledge, the applicability of the theory of authority in exegesis, and the permissibility of following the deceased. It also critically examines evidence such as the distinctive features of the companions, the reliance of the ignorant on the knowledgeable, the closure of the door of ijtihad, and other Quranic and hadith-based evidence.

The issue of "legislative ijtihad of the Holy Prophet" dates back to the early history of Islam. Some Sunni scholars believe that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his progeny), in some religious rulings where no revelation was revealed upon him, acted based on his own ijtihad (i.e. independent reasoning). The research problem is that the admission of legislative ijtihad in divine rulings undermines trust in the rulings taught by the Holy Prophet and opens the door to personal opinions and discretion in religious rulings. The aim of this paper is to examine the theory of "legislative ijtihad of the Holy Prophet" based on Quranic and narrative arguments and evidences, with emphasis on the views of Ibn Ḥazm Al-Andalusī and ‘Allāmah Ḥillī. The research method is descriptive-analytical and through utilizing library sources, the data is described and historical analysis of the research problem is made. The research findings in brief suggest that according to ‘Allāmah Ḥillī, the concept of legislative ijtihad of the Holy Prophet in an absolute sense is rejected, and is only acceptable in the case of divine permission and within the framework of principles of revelation. Ibn Ḥazm also believes that the narrations cited to prove the legislative ijtihad of the Prophet have weak chains of transmission and contradict the apparent meaning of the Quranic verses.

Criminal policy varies in every era as a way to fight crime according to social transformations. Considering the position of human being in the center of attention and preserving human dignity, this policy has undergone significant changes and has led to the discussion of human rights and has been specially reflected in international documents so that the international community is required to comply and align with these policies. shows The criminal law of Islam has special infrastructures and foundations that seem inconsistent with this development in some places. Apparently, there seems to be a mismatch between the international criminal policy and Islam, but the similarities between the two systems are more than what is seen in the world of science. and politics are expressed. Islamic law operates based on a unique logic that cannot be drawn through the categories provided by classical international law. The purpose of this research is to use the descriptive-analytical method, and with regard to politics Modern criminal and Sharia foundations and capacities of Islamic jurisprudence, which is mostly based on the inherent capacity of Islamic rulings for globalization, expressed the points of difference and similarity, and then by presenting solutions such as evolution and change in the sources of ijtihad, proved the method of having Islamic punishments based on evidence. rationally and figuratively, accepting the signature of corporal punishments based on the acceptance of the validity of the rational way of life and the lack of the validity of the single news in important matters, should also turn the points of difference into alignment and companionship

The term “Kisfan” in the Quran has been pronounced with both a fathah (opening) and a sukun (silencing) on the letter sin by various reciters. Linguistic sources attribute multiple meanings to this term, encompassing both nominal and verbal interpretations, including “cutting,” “covering,” “a piece,” “casting down,” “moving away,” “decline,” “overpowering,” “collapsing,” and “being overwhelmed.” Azharī was the first to explore the variations in the recitation of this term within lexicographical studies, referencing Farrāʾ’s insights on its pronunciation and meaning, as well as Zajjāj’s claim that these two recitations imply different meanings. The discourse surrounding the differing recitations of this term is notably more pronounced in exegetical literature from the fourth to the seventh centuries compared to other eras. In the field of Qirā’āt (Quranic recitations), the semantic distinction between these two forms is particularly clear, as one denotes a plural and the other a singular. For example, Ibn ʿĀmir interprets “Kisfan” with a sukun as singular and with a fathah on the sin as plural. Consequently, in contexts suggesting plurality, such as verse 92 of Surah al-Isra, he opts for the fathah, diverging from the majority of reciters, while in verse 48 of Surah al-Rum, he employs the sukun to indicate singularity, again differing from the consensus. Shu’bah, a notable narrator from ʿĀṣim, reads “Kisfan” with a sukun in verses where the particle “min” is used in a partitive context (e.g., kisfan mina al-samāʾ), treating it as singular. The findings of this descriptive-analytical study highlight the presence of “ijtihad” (independent reasoning), “rule-based decisions,” “non-reliance solely on transmission,” and “choice” among certain reciters and narrators, as well as the non-revelatory nature of all variations in recitational recitation.

One of the issues raised under the topics of "ijtihād and taqlīd" is the invalidity of an obligatory act in the absence of taqlīd and caution, which almost all Shi'a jurists believe is invalid. The need to address this issue is because a person, after years of acting without imitation and caution, decides to perform actions with imitation of a mujtahid or caution from then on. Now, if his past deeds are invalid, he will suffer a lot of hardship to make up for his past deeds. In this article, in an analytical-descriptive method and citing library sources, the theories and arguments of Shi'a jurists have been criticized, and the basic question has been answered that, "in the case of action without imitation and caution, are all the past actions of the obligee (mukallaf) are considered void and should be made up for?" "And what is the criterion of the validity or invalidity of such a person's action the opinion of the mujtahid during the action or during the recourse?" By examining the evidence, it has been concluded that if such an action is in accordance with the facts or in accordance with the opinion of one of the two mujtahids during the action and during the reference (valid evidence), it is permissible and valid and does not require the compensation of past actions.

Arbitration is one of the important methods of dispute resolution in domestic and international law. The traces of this legal institution can also be found in Imamiyyah jurisprudence, known among jurists as the appointed judge (qadi tahkim). Imamiyyah jurists have resorted to religious evidence from the Quran, Sunnah, and consensus to legitimize arbitration under the title of appointed judge. The present research, using an analytical-descriptive method and library data collection tools, answers the question: What is the basis of arbitration in Imamiyyah jurisprudence? Should the appointed judge have all the conditions of an appointed judge, or is having some conditions of an appointed judge sufficient? The findings of this research show that the majority of jurists, citing verse 35 of Surah An-Nisa, consider the basis of arbitration to be appointment and have considered all conditions of an appointed judge necessary for the appointed judge as well. It should be said that the evidence of the majority of jurists does not have the power to prove all the conditions of an appointed judge, including ijtihad, for the appointed judge.

Waḥīd Behbahānī (d. 1205 AH) was one of the most prominent jurists of the 12th century Hijri, who passed away in the early years of the 13th century. He left behind a significant legacy in jurisprudence and principles and trained many distinguished students, some of whom are among the most notable jurists of the 13th century Hijri. Most importantly, in his intellectual life, he defeated the Akhbari movement that had dominated most Shiite seminaries during the 12th century. Some of his works are collections of jurisprudential questions and answers, known as Istiftā'āt. These questions and answers contain social, cultural, and civil information and emphasize certain key concepts crucial for understanding the religion and its interpretive methods. This article is based on one of these collections of Istiftā'āt and presents a selection from them.

“Prophetic ijtihad” is a challenging issue among Sunni thinkers that has its roots in the early history of Islam. The ijtihad of the Prophet means that the Holy Prophet (PBUH) ruled in some cases based on his personal opinion and ijtihad. Due to the opposition of a large number of scholars to this issue, the main question of this article is whether the Holy Prophet inferred the rules of Sharia based on his ijtihad or not? Our hypothesis is that according to the explicit verses of the Holy Qur'an, any ruling and word of the Holy Prophet is based on divine revelation and he never ruled on the basis of opinion and ijtihad. The finding of this article is that based on the convincing Quranic reasons and the narration of the issue of ijtihad of the Prophet, it is considered a rejected thing. This is because a mujtahid is not infallible and may make mistakes. However, finding error in the ijtihads of the Holy Prophet contradicts his absolute infallibility.

Muhammad Shahrour is one of the contemporary Quranists who aim to weaken the place of Hadith in jurisprudence.  To prove this claim, he presents Quranism as a complete alternative and then questions the doctrine of  the Justice of the Companions and rejects the Sunni hadiths regarding the justice of the Companions. He then challenges the infallibility of the prophets and the concept of the Sunnah in order to discredit the hadiths transmitted from the Prophet and to discredit the position of the Sunnah as a foundation of jurisprudence. For this purpose, he rejects the validity and effectiveness of the teachings found in the prophetic tradition and emphasizes their historicity. By adopting the descriptive-analytical method, this article attempts to provide a critique of the disregard for Hadith in the jurisprudential inference system of Shahrour. For this purpose, an attempt has been made to respond to the controversies so that the position of hadith is recognized as one of the pillars of valid jurisprudence.

The issue of ijtihād has gone through many ups and downs since its inception until now. Undoubtedly, ijtihād among Sunni scholars has not followed an acceptable process and they have ended up committing ijtihād by voting and then turning to obstruction. However, ijtihād in the Shia school has always been dynamic and mobile since the fifth century and has played a significant role in human scientific innovation due to the acceptance of the immediate caliphate of Amīrul Mominīn and benefiting from the problems of Alawite jurisprudence. The element of ijtihād is the driving engine that advances Islamic Shari'ah along with time, place, needs and questions. This research, with a descriptive and analytical method, deals with the essence and components of ijtihād, and its comparative analysis in Imāmiyyah and Sunni jurisprudence. Ijtihād in Imāmiyyah is ijtihad in the general sense, that is, extracting and inferring secondary rulings from verses and hadiths using logic. But ijtihād in Sunnis is special ijtihād and interpretation is based on opinion. This writing presents the image and definition of ijtihād that is approved by the innocents, and shows the true face of Salafi ijtihād, which is rooted in Sunni ijtihād, especially Hanbali ijtihād. What distinguishes this research is the comparative investigation of what is ijtihād and its components from the perspective of Sunni and Imāmiyyah, because in many books and articles, only the views of Shia are limited and less has been done to compare these two religions in the matter of ijtihād.

In the Islamic legal system "sharia" as the main source of constitutional law goes beyond the written document and gives content to the norms of the constitution. The idea of ​​an Islamic constitution is neither a mere adherence to the principles of the constitution nor a formalist adherence to its writings, but in fact the same adherence to the spirit of the constitution. In addition, "Ijtihad" and “Maslahah” as two dynamic elements of sharia to deduce sharia rules; Built to suit the needs of each era. In this regard, the study of the nature of the Sharia, which can prevail and influence the principles and concepts of the Constitution as a superior spirit and unwritten norm, compared to the written text of the Constitution; It is essential. The present study examines the position of Sharia in the Islamic legal order as a Hypertext value that has subjugated the identity and foundation of a nation, and also by emphasizing the dynamic elements of the Sharia and their impact on the vitality of this superior norm, tries to clarify the relationship between sharia and the unwritten constitution.

This research aims to answer the central question: What capacities exist in the thought of the governance system of the Islamic Republic of Iran, based on the foundational principles of Imam Khomeini, for moving towards the indicators of desirable governance? Elements of ijtihad, general policies, and governmental decrees are among the capacities of the Islamic Republic system, and research and examination of them can effectively promote the legislative system towards adapting to the requirements of the time and the complexities of governance in today's world. The research methodology is descriptive-analytical, and the results indicate that ignoring good governance in the individual and collective life system seems impractical in today's world. This process can facilitate personal exploitation of rents and corruption, eroding public confidence in the government. This can lead citizens to be deceived by violent groups and foreign enemies, and in such a situation, terrorism and violence can occur in society. General policies, ijtihad, and governmental decrees all contribute to completing a roadmap that can be used to pursue the path of implementing desirable governance and better managing the country. The dynamism of Shia jurisprudence enables these three capacities to solve society's problems according to the requirements of the time. This makes it possible to guide the Islamic Republic system towards the indicators of desirable governance, achieve a more favorable situation, and increase social capital through public support for the country's policies.

With the industrialization and secularization of culture, the social activities of the institution of religion have been limited and gradually marginalized. Based on this, religious theologians have sought to formulate and expand a faith-based social life and not only harmonize industrial and technological development with their religious identity but also base its construction on religious identity. This effort requires presenting religion as a coherent and universal whole so that theologians can present appropriate theological answers to the needs of contemporary humans. However, the degree to which religion can be systematic depends on how theologians deal with religious propositions and how these propositions are formulated to solve social problems. On the other hand, religion goes beyond determining an individual's personal program, duties, and religious rituals and becomes a critic and founder of social and political structures. Based on this, social systems are founded on the text of religion in society. This article, through a comparative study in Christian and Islamic theology, seeks to address the methodological requirements and how to deal with religious propositions and how to formulate them in solving social problems, focusing on the views and thoughts of Paul Tillich and Ayatollah Khamenei.

Mirza Mohammad Akhbari (d. 1232 AH) is one of the Akhbari scholars who is known for his numerous works containing sharp criticism of Mujtahids. In the present research, a less-explored aspect of Mirza Muhammad Akhbari's ideas and works, which includes his mystical tendency, has been studied. This research also study impact of the intellectual context of the time (the first decades of the 13th lunar century) on his ideas. That time was the era of conflict between the three discourses of Ijtihad, Sufi and Akhbari. The questions of this research are: How was Mirza Mohammad Akhbari's connection with Sufism and mysticism? How this kind of connection has been manifested in his works? and to what extent mystical aspect of his thought has been affected by his Akhbarism? The results of the research indicate that Mirza Mohammad Akhbari’s positions on mysticism and Sufism were influenced by his hostile literature against the mujtahids. Mirza Mohammad Akhbari defends mysticism and criticizes Sufism, using the dualism of mysticism/sufism. He also wrote treatises on mystical wisdom and was in contact with Sufis. He likened Sufis to Mujtahids and mystics to Akhbarites and considered Sufis and Mujtahids to be similar to each other in their heresy and dependence on Sunnis. Furthermore, by defending Sufi figures that have been criticized by scholars, he has practically taken the side of Sufis in the debate between mujtahids and Sufis.

Among the methods of Qurʾānic exegesis is narrative interpretation. Whether narrative interpretations are devoid of any ijtihad and the interpreter's use of reason, or not, has led some scholars to categorize these types of interpretations into two kinds pure narrative and Ijtihādi narrative. Al-Durr al-Manthur by Suyūtī, a Sunni interpreter and hadith scholar, is considered among the narrative interpretations of the Qurʾān. This interpretation has been deemed by some contemporary interpreters and exegesis researchers as a pure narrative interpretation. The main question of this research is whether the interpreter in Al-Durr al-Manthūr has solely relied on narratives in the interpretation of the verse, or if there are grounds for ijtihad and the use of reason as well. The forthcoming essay seeks to answer this question, using a descriptive-analytical method and a critical approach. While examining Al-Durr al-Manthūr, it concludes that despite some contemporary interpreters and researchers categorizing this interpretation as pure narrative, there is evidence of the influence of the interpreter's preconceived intellectual notions and the use of reason in mentioning the chains of some narratives, commenting on the authenticity of some narratives, the influence of the interpreter's theological inclinations in the selection and arrangement of some narratives, the selection of some narratives from the sources used, and also expressing the hadith-rejal viewpoints of some scholars about the narrative and narrator. This leads to the possibility of categorizing Al-Durr al-Manthūr as an Ijtihadi narrative interpretation, although the interpreter has refrained from explicit commentary in explaining the verses.

Valid custom approved by the Shari'ah is one of the evidences and tools for deducing Islamic rulings. In some cases, it is the most important and sometimes the only document for responding to the daily needs of society in the field of ijtihad (jurisprudential reasoning). The Shari'ah has approved the custom of custom in non-worship matters. Since rational presumptions do not need to be authorized by the Shari'ah, their rationality suffices for their authenticity. This is because the audience of religious rulings are the common people, and the religious orders have been established for them to live better lives. Entrusting the diagnosis of issues to specialized customs is effective in many cases and leads to uniformity in the construction of logic. The custom in question is a precise and tolerant custom that is carefully adapted and recognized. In this case, there is no prohibition in the Shari'ah. It cannot be said that a custom with this characteristic, which is a product of rational nature and as a general theorem of proof, is a proof in the time of the presence of the Infallibles (peace be upon them) and not a proof in the age of absence. On this basis, custom is one of the evidences and tools that can be used to deduce Islamic rulings.

A significant question about  Imam Khomeini’s theory of the guardianship of the jurist (wilāyat al-faqīh) revolves around the scholarly prerequisites for the ruling jurist. Should the ruling jurist be an absolute mujtahid? Must the ruling jurist have deduced all jurisprudential rulings before assuming the guardianship position? Is it necessary for the ruling jurist to surpass his contemporary jurists in knowledge? If the answer to the latter question is affirmative, should this knowledge superiority be in jurisprudential inferences or in political management and administration? This study does not delve into arguments supporting the doctrine of the guardianship of the jurist as presented by prominent jurists. Instead, it employs the analytical method and draws upon library resources, particularly Imam Khomeini's jurisprudential works, to address these questions. According to the research findings, Imam Khomeini mandates the potential for absolute ijtihad in the guardian jurist, signifying the ability to make jurisprudential inferences in a significant number of sharia rulings. Furthermore, he stipulates the actual inference of a substantial number of sharia rulings for the ruling jurist, requiring that the majority of jurisprudential rulings be inferred before assuming the position. Moreover, based on caution, Imam Khomeini requires that the ruling jurist be the most knowledgeable jurist in the land of his reign concerning the inference of jurisprudential rulings and the management of public affairs. When Imam Khomeini's views are juxtaposed to his practice, it becomes evident that in the absence of a jurist meeting all the conditions, certain conditions can be compromised in favor of others.