جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « ijtihad » در نشریات گروه « علوم انسانی »

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.

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.

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.

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.

One of the historical facts about the recitation of the Qur’an is the difference in recitation. The emergence of different readings is the result of two types that can be divided into natural and ijtihad causes. According to the research, a series of causes have been done naturally, which have also been addressed by students and commentators of Qur’anic sciences, such as: differences in Arabic words and accents, empty words from signs, Arabic and dots in The beginning of Islam includes the absence of the extended letter in the structure of words and the negligence of the scribes of the word of revelation in writing the exact calligraphy of the Qur’an. On the other hand, issues such as prejudice and selfishness of some readers in presenting new readings, ignorance of Arabic rules, competition between readers, imposition of morphological and syntactic rules, have been the ijtihad causes of some readers in the development of readings. By referring to the historical texts of reading books, the effect of readers’ ijtihad on Islamic sciences can be clearly seen.

The derivation of a jurisprudential ruling in a certain path and mechanism sometimes faces challenges that the mujtahid must find a solution to get out of it and complete the issuance of the ruling. One of these challenges is the conflict between a narrative reason and a rational reason, the mechanism of reaching its conclusion is the problem of this research, and since it does not have a rich background, it is also an indicator of the novelty of this article compared to similar works. This research in the interdisciplinary geography of jurisprudence and principles, and in a descriptive, analytical way, the process of how to overcome the challenge of the conflict between narrative reason and rational reason has been the focus of its main question. The findings of this research show that in the conflict between narrative and rational reason, if the narrative reason is valid, in the assumption of conflict with unnecessary rational reason, the narrative reason takes precedence, and if the rational reason is one of necessity and certainties, then the rational reason takes precedence over the narrative. The Usulists of Ahl al-Sunnah have a consensus that in the conflict between qiyas and single news, if it is not possible to combine them, the reason of suspicion is preferable; But they differ on which one of these two is preferable; But from the Shiite point of view, due to the inauthenticity of "Qiyas", such a conflict does not arise.

This Maq̣bula is one of the most widely used narrations that has been cited in the analysis of various issues such as: Shuhra (reputation), Ta’arud al-Adilla (conflict of reasons), Ijtihad (individual inference) and Taq̣lid (imitation), Qidawa (judgment) and Wilaya (guardianship). The objective of this research is to evaluate and analyze the content of this hadith in order to determine the validity of its citing. The necessary data were collected from library sources and descriptive-analytical method was used to analyze the data. The findings of the research show that although this narrative is known as "Maq̣ubla" (Maqbula refers to a narration that is widely accepted by jurisprudents), which can be an indication of its validity; the prevalence of this title is the result of trusting the description of Shahid Thani. The fundamental doubts in the document of this narration and the existence of different semantic alternatives in its terms have caused inconsistent jurisprudential understandings. Therefore, the claim that this hadith is accepted by the earlier and later jurists is not justified and it cannot be mentioned as a source of jurisprudential inference; However, its content indicates the existence of a structured approach in solving the conflicts of hadiths and Imamiya’s claims.

Interdisciplinary research plays a crucial role in the advancement and revitalization of scientific knowledge. By combining expertise from various related fields, it promotes scientific progress and resolves uncertainties, thus clarifying complex concepts. Analyzing and revising jurisprudential opinions to align them with Muslim medical data is essential for the dynamic nature of Islamic interpretation (ijtihād). The article focuses on the method of cleaning (Tahārah) the feet during ablution (Vuzū), specifically examining the anatomy of the Malleolus bones in relation to the term "Ka’bīn" mentioned in the sixth verse of Surah Mā'idah. The prevailing opinion among renowned jurists, as quoted by Allameh Helli, regarding the method of cleaning the feet is subject to scrutiny. The author, based on the concept and positioning of the Ka'b on the human foot, calls for a substantial revision of the related jurisprudential decrees (fatwā) on anointing (maṣḥ) and its procedure. Accordingly, the sufficiency of cleaning the feet, even with a single finger, which is the widely accepted view among Shiite jurists according to Helli, becomes a debatable aspect for ensuring foot purity. Furthermore, medical terminology and anatomical evidence demonstrate that Ka'bīn encompasses both the external and internal sides of the foot. Additionally, data derived from medical osteology of the ankle challenges a significant portion of the jurisprudential fatwā pertaining to the principle of cleaning the feet and its method.

According to the famous (in the meaning of prevailing) view of jurists, ‘Ijtihad’ is a prerequisite for making judicial decisions. Some others permit the adjudication by non-Mujtahid judges. Although both sides of arguments are based on reasoning with references to the Qur'an and the Sunnah, there is an objection to the way of reasoning of both sides, since they have been made in the absence of the analysis of practical process of adjudication and in the ignorance of the element of ‘codified law’. The establishment of the regime of Islamic Republic of Iran and legislative process based on Sharia standards indicates a transformation in the subject of adjudication, requiring reconsideration and reexamination of Ijtihad requirement in the light of such a transformation. The current article reviews the common jurisprudential arguments on Ijtihad requirement for adjudication and analyses its process and stages. Then, with an emphasis on the extent of the influence that religious rulings have on law and human measures, with taking into account the nature of Ijtihad and comparing it with the nature of dispute resolution, accompanied by the consideration of certain requirements of judicial system, such as the uniformity of judicial practices, it will ultimately reinforces the perspective that is in favor of non-necessity of Ijtihad in making judicial decisions.

In Islamic jurisprudence, there is a very important issue under the title of Islamic government, which is the distinguishing feature of the rules of Islamic law compared to other religions. In fact, in the teachings and opinions of Islamic jurists, the concept of political power has been recognized through the recognition of Islamic government. In the meantime, Shia jurists refrained from dealing with the issue of political power as one of the basic and main issues of Shia jurisprudence due to the specific socio-political conditions from the time of the beginning of Islam until the establishment of the first Shia governments. But after the formation of Shiite governments, the issue of political power became one of the most important issues in the field of political jurisprudence. The purpose of the current research, which was collected with descriptive-analytical method and library tools, is to analyze and evaluate the concept of political power in the thought of Shiite jurists. In the end, in light of the evolution of Shia thoughts, it is witnessed that in Shia political jurisprudence, given the openness of ijtihad from its outset to the present time, there have always been new mechanisms for ruling in the society, so that after the Infallible (pbuh), depending on historical conditions, other jurists and Islamic scholars have proposed various theories about political power.

Ijtihad and its jurisprudential principles (Osule Feqh) are more important than qualitative methods of research such as the contextualization (Zamine Yābi) approach, because the method of inferring the religion's laws and acquiring the Shariah rulings, are considered the basis of authority (Hojjiyat) or excuse (Mo'aẑẑeriyat) and finality (Monajjeziyat) in Imamiyyah jurisprudence. However, it seems that due to the centrality of language (texts, and data) and the generation of ideas (theory, fatwa, and inference) there are common features between the two approaches of contextualization and jurisprudential ijtihad. Since a large number of studies in methodology of research confirm the advantages and strengths of the contextualization approach, the possibility of using this qualitative research method in the process of ijtihad and inference of jurists is questionable.The upcoming research, by adopting the descriptive-analytical method and in the form of critical realism, has compared the two mentioned approaches to answer this question, the results indicate that the approach of contextualization and jurisprudential ijtihad in requirements, ontology, epistemology and the methodology (data, research approach and analysis method) have fundamental differences. Also, the results of the research showed that unlike the direct and explicit method of contextualization, ijtihad is a complex process that requires the agency of the researcher (mentality (Malakeh) of ijtihad) and vast and deep knowledge of the mujtahid.

Imami jurists believe that the opening of ijtihad has various effects, one of which is the employment of many people in the field of ijtihad and ifta. Sometimes people who claim to be in the field of ijtihad and ifta may not actually have enough knowledge in this regard, and the fatwa issued by them will cause harm to individuals. It seems that one of the tools by which it is possible to control the above-mentioned possible matter is to install a "mufti guarantee" which itself has countless confirmations in the four sources and due to the distribution of resources scattered in the votes and The views of some jurists have been pointed out, albeit in a small way. Most of the executive mechanism of the mufti's guarantee has been taken.which itself has countless confirmations in the four sources and due to the distribution of resources scattered in the votes and The views of some jurists have been pointed out, albeit in a small way. Most of the executive mechanism of the mufti's guarantee has been taken.