جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « حجیت خبر واحد » در نشریات گروه « فقه و حقوق »

The victory of the School of Ijtihād over the Akhbārīs school is above all influenced by the scholarly power, eloquence, and mentorship of Vaḥīd Bihbahānī.  The type of Ijtihād formulated by him was never a continuation of Muḥaqiq Ardibīlī’s thought pattern, but rather accompanied by developments in the acceptance of repots. In facing the Akhbārīs, he acknowledged Ijtihād as an offspring of the needs of the scholarly community, putting emphasis on the credibility of Imāmī books instead of the apparent reliability of narrational sources. The main question of this research is to recognize Vaḥīd Bihbahānī ‘s main criteria in dealing with Ḥadīth, and to investigate how he formulated his approach. The theory of Blocking (ʾInsidād) was his most important tool in expanding the scope of accepting reports. Based on this theory, he would justify the authority of reliable, good, and strong reports as well as that of authentic news. Similarly, he would even consider suspicion enough to prove the reliability of the narrator. Later experts did not approve of this theory. Another important tool employed by Vaḥīd Bihbahānī in expanding the scope of accepting narrations was to compensate for the weakness of the document through the actions of Aṣḥāb (companions). Therefore, by proposing the theory of ʾInibār, he considered only weak non-compelled reports as invalid among the four categories of Ḥadīth (authentic, good, reliable, and weak).

The basics of the validity of Khabar al-Wāḥid (tradition narrated by a single source) have been discussed by contemporary Uṣūlī scholars in detail during the discussion of the subject of Qaṭʻ and Ḍann (certitude and presumption) in Uṣūlī books, and various criteria have been presented for accepting the narrations of Āḥād, such as the existence of definite evidence, the reliability of the narrators of the chain transmission, and assurance of narration issuance. Meanwhile, the theory of "agreement with the spirit of the Qurʼān and the Sunnah" is one of the emerging theories that tries to express a criterion for the validity of Khabar al-Wāḥid and to attributes its issuance and non-issuance to the holy infallibles (ʻA). Āyatollāhs Martyr Sayyid al-Ṣadr and al-Sīstānī are among those who support this theory. Of course, Martyr Sayyid al-Ṣadr has accepted the validity of Khabar al-Thiqah, along with it, raised the possibility of the completeness of this theory, but Āyatollāh al-Sīstānī has not accepted the validity of Khabar al-Thiqah and considers his only criterion in the validity of Khabar al-Wāḥid to be its spiritual agreement with the Qurʼān and the Sunnah. His main reason for proving the mentioned theory is the Mutawātir narrations (narrations narrated by several sources), which the contents of them is to obtain the Khabar in case of agreement with the Qurʼān and the Sunnah, and to reject it if it is contrary to the Qurʼān and the Sunnah. Since there is no correct and comprehensive explanation and analysis of this theory and its foundations in books and articles, even from the theory's cofounders, the present study, with the aim of explaining the contents of the theory and analyzing the limits and gaps of the evidence and in the shadow of describing and analyzing the Uṣūlī and narrative propositions and by collecting library data and by categorizing the narratives considered by the theory's supporters and by examining the way of their implication and explaining its various aspects, has tried to provide a correct explanation and analysis of the theory and to answer possible problems with the theory.

Article (188) of the Islamic Penal Code (1392), testifies to the testimony as one of the arguments for proving the claim, but in note (2) of this article, the testimony on the testimony of a third party is not accepted. This note is in accordance with the famous fatwa of the Imamieh jurisprudents. The main reason for the popularity of the jurists is the consensus, adherence to the principle, the non-inclusion of traditions on the subject of testimony on the testimony, as well as a specific narrative in this regard. Contrary to this promise, however, a number of contemporary jurists believe that the acceptance of third-party testimony is justified. The group rejects all the well-known arguments in support of their claim and, in their view, refuse to offset the weakness of the particular cause document by fame; In this article, the authors examine the famous arguments and argue throughout the argument that even if one accepts the scientific theory of documentary weakness compensation by fame, the famous quote can still be accepted and promises to have some form of construction. The authors suggest that the inclusion of a single news authority argument may be a strong reason for accepting testimony over subordinate testimony. It is worth noting that this theory has a wide application in the context of the affirmative action, especially in cases such as the special endowment that, after the initial abortive death and the endowment reaches the end, there is no way to prove the endowment other than the testimony of subordinate testimony.

The rule of discrimination in the authority of hadith is one of the rules mentioned by jurists, the various aspects of which are not well explained. In the present article, various perspectives on the rule in the two positions of affirmation and proof are examined. In the present article, it is proved that the rule of discrimination in authority is acceptable in terms of the proof, and as an affirmative rule, there are seven folded reasons for its validity. The rule applies to narrations that have a non-analytical implication and whose clauses are independent and have independent rulings, but if the implication implies an analytical or non-analytical continuum and has a plays a significant role in proving the principle or it mea at least be dubious. As the reason of conduct is non-verbal and plays an important role in proving the rule and determining its scope, this rule is not applicable in dubious cases. Such a detail accords with the seven folded reasons of rules authority as well.

Khabar wahid as one of the sources and proof of inference of rules of sharia has been subject of attention and faqihs have always been divided on whether or not it is valid proof as it was considered as valid proof by majority of faqihs in some period while it wasn’t in another. Today, the majority opinion is that khabar wahid is valid proof but no clarification has been made about applicability of khabar wahid as regards main affairs (umur muhimmah). Given the fact that there are many transmitters in transmission of khabar, which weakens the possibility of truth of khabar and considering rule spirit of sharia and common sense that caution must be when dealing with main affairs (umur muhimmah), this paper aimed to show that use of khabar wahid as the mere basis of making laws (such as stoning of adulterer and execution of apostates) in main affairs is contrary to spirit of sharia and common sense and therefore lacks support of reason and sharia.