جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « شیخ طوسی » در نشریات گروه « فقه و حقوق »

Velayat-e-Faqih has a long history in Shiite jurisprudential, theological and ideological texts. The purpose of this research is to analyze this position and its powers in the words of Sheikh Tusi and the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

This syudy id of descriptive - analytical one.

Authenticity of the texts, honesty has been observed in this study.

According to Sheikh Tusi, judging is one of the positions of the Infallible Imam as well as the jurists chosen by him. In the absence of the Imam, the jurists can receive khums, zakat, and zakat al-fitr. He can also lead the congregation of Eid prayers and Friday prayers. And of course, according to the social and political conditions of the time of Sheikh Tusi, many of the powers of the jurist had limited by Taqiyya. In the constitution, there are some principles referring to the powers of Velayat-e-Faqih, which have been regulated according to Imam Khomeini's views, and in the revisions that took place in it, the powers of the leadership have been added.

Velayat-e-Faqih has wide authority in the opinion of first-range Shiite jurists, including Sheikh Tusi, as well as the principles of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is based on Islamic texts and jurisprudence.

One of the factors influencing the decrees of the contemporary jurists is to convey the narrations based on dissimulation (taqiyyah). This method can often be seen in the works of Sheikh Tousi. Using this method to remove the contradictory narrations was among his significant characteristics which did not have any precedence before his time and the two books namely Al-Tahdhīb and Al-Istibṣār fīmā ikhtalafa mina-l-akhbār are the certain examples of this claim. The present study, analyzing the method of Sheikh i.e. to convey the narrations based on dissimulation and focusing on the sequence of the mentioned preferences in the Maqbūlah of Umar Ibn Hanzalah based on the priority of the  justice of narrator, the popularity of narration, its agreement with the Book, and disagreement with the Sunnis ('Ammah) and scrutinizing three cases of his viewpoints as examples invalidates the Sheikh’s reasoning for conveying the narrations based on dissimulation and does not see any excuse for that.

With the addition of new corollaries to Shiite jurisprudence during the era of al-Tafri' jurisprudence (the jurisprudence that has the two following features: 1. the inference of issues and subjects in principles. 2. The systematic provision of jurisprudential texts based on Ijtihad and without depending on the text of the principle), new principles were added along with new corollaries to the structure of jurisprudence. Although the origin of some of them can be analyzed historically, but an important part of the consequences in this process has been unknown thus far. One of these cases is the phenomenon in which a variable in one period is added to the topics of an issue and while addressing the issue immediately affects all the branches. Then, over time, it becomes one of the principles to inference the other branches. This study tries to investigate these developments and criteria and illustrate its effects and consequences in Shiite jurisprudence through analyzing the evolution course of jurisprudential branches, from formation to evolution. The study is conducted based on the issue, "the definition of the criteria and limits of obedience in alimony". This issue has been involved in complexities and conflicts over different periods by passing a series of developments. By carrying out this study, the role of the historical course of the companion's approach to the formation of complexities and ambiguities in this branch will be clarified.

From the age of Shaykh Mufīd (d. 413) up to Muḥaqqiq Ḥillī (d. 676), we have witnessed an approach within the Imāmiyya discourse, which, by non-acceptance of traditions narrated by a single sources (āḥād), suffices with traditions narrated by several sources (mutawātir) and wrapped in evidences. In the meantime, Shakh Ṭūsī has not only considered as valid the āḥād traditions in his book, Al-‘Udda fī Uṣūl al-Fiqh, but has also claimed consensus in this respect, a claim that is in contradiction to the consensus claimed by Sayyid Murtaḍā. To resolve this contradiction various patterns have been presented by the Imāmiyya scholars. A brief look at the collected works of Shaykh Ṭūsī indicates that he too has not been committed to his claimed consensus and has preferred the view of invalidity of the āḥād traditions in most of his works. Such evidences suggest that instead of interpreting the discourse of Sayyid Murtaḍā, one should turn to a new explanation of Shaykh Ṭūsī’s view about the way to encounter āḥād traditions. It seems that Ṭūsī is also within discourse of Mufīd and Murtaḍā. Since his masters’ approach would result in putting aside a great part of the sunna and therefore turning to the verdict of intellect and scholarly principles, he has presented a new version of “principality of evidences school” (Mufīd’s and Murtaḍā’s school) so that by relying on it to make some development in accepting traditions.

One of the prevalent methods of the Shiite jurists toward contradictory traditions has been that they were attributing one of them to taqiyya (precautionary dissimulation). However, the criteria for this attribution have been seriously changed throughout the various periods which one of the most important of them has been the age of Shaikh Tousi in the fifth century; for the first time, his method was widespread and he attributed a numerous narrations to taqiyya. But Shaikh`s methodological doctrine was changed in the later centuries of Islamic jurisprudence and every groups of the imamite jurists carried out its own approach as the nature of what had been presented by shaikh, finally became different while Sheikh` methodology was a mere cognitive but it was diverted onto a irresponsible means. Similarly, because of the interaction between this issue and other juristic and usuli (principles of jurisprudence) problems, these transformations have made the effective roles in some developments of Shiite jurisprudence.
Researching these secrete corners makes clear the cause of some changes. This study will examine this transformation and its effective causes and also its influence on other areas.

One of most prevalent methods of Shiite jurists toward contradictory traditions has been to consider them as Taqiyya. However, the instructions of this method had serious development during different periods, which one of most important of them, has been the periods of Shaikh Tousi in the fifth century in which several traditions had considered as Taqiyya. This study examines the ratio between the period of Shaikh and the period of earlier jurists before the fifth century and tries to find the main cause of the the reason for developing such a great individually by Shaikh. Whether this multiplicity of Taqiyya in Shaikh’s work is just because of the methodical difference between them, or it’s because of a serious fundamental difference between them. By this study, it will be proved that the difference between this two period isn’t just a methodical one and it is because of a deep fundamental difference.

Sheikh Toosi considers concubine marriage appropriate and legit with permissible reasons from Quran and the tradition and states that the consensus Emamieh considers it lawful so he believes that all the laws of the permanent marriage is true for concubine one and says that although it has some differences in lawful sense with permanent marriage, but it has no difference in rules except in the "limited duration" with it. In this type of marriage, man and woman whose marriage is permitted are married and determine their marital dowry and its duration. Child from their marriage is legitimate and legal. By the completion of the marriage time they get separated without divorcing, and she stays single for a preset time after the separation, etc.However, Abu Hanifeh and his disciples believe that the legibility of this type of marriage has been terminated due to some reasons from Quran, traditions, and reason. They have even put it in one line with adultery and prostitution. They believe that the second Caliph has made concubine marriage clearly unlawful, but none of the companions made a protest against that and this shows clearly to everyone that this marriage is unlawful. Some of them make some differences between concubine marriage and temporary marriage.

propounded by Shaykh Ṭūsī in his Al-Khilāf and Al-Mansūṭ, following the Sunnī's example. As one of the dignitary figures in the history of Imāmī jurisprudence, Shaykh Ṭūsī has played a great role in the qualitative and quantitative development of jurisprudence. Adopting a historical methodology, the researcher raises the following questions and deliberates on Shaykh Ṭūsī's arguments: Why did Shaykh Ṭūsī not make reference to "consensus" (ijma‘) in this issue? Why did Shaykh Ṭūsī not make reference to the outer aspect of the noble āya: ﴾Men are managers of the affairs of women﴿? [The Qur’an, 4: 34] To what extent is the historical validity of the ḥadīth referred to by Shaykh Ṭūsī? How analyzable is the principle of "non-fabrication of judgment" for a woman, which forms her most significant reason? Concentration on how to raise the issue, arrangement of the data, presentation of the fundamentals, and the achieved results of this issue, provide a suitable "form" for dealing with the "content" and analysis of the issue according to basic principles by the method of Jawāhirī jurisprudence in other jurisprudential discourses and issues.

Mostanbetoll Elleh" is one of the controversial issues between Shia and Sunni. Sheikh Toussi knew "Mostanbetol Elleh" analogy invalid. He tried to explain Shia jurisprudence without it but this process make conflict.Ibn Edris, Mohaqeq Helli and Shahid Sani indicated some works of Sheikh Toussi are based on that analogy and Ibn Edris tried to defend Sheikh Toussi 's work. We should consider in those works and it is unlikely Sheikh Toussi acted in them.

To fulfill its mission, Shiite jurisprudence has undergone certain stages ofdevelopment according to the spatio – temporal requirements. So it has had itsown features in every age. One of these stages is the brilliant age of Baghdadschool during which prominent scholars such as Shaykh Mufid, SayyidMurtada, and Shaykh Tusi founded a new school. Establishing this schoolbased on the great sources of the Quran and the Sunna, they also introducedintellectual method in the field of jurisprudential studies with a specialprudence and applying new approaches.Venerating the former generation of jurisprudents adherent to textualproofs and commemorating their sincere efforts in safeguarding the precioussource of “texts”, they analyzed the former approaches and founded a newschool. The present article seeks to survey the process of institutionalizing“reason” in the methodology of jurisprudence by Shiite jurisprudents.

Sheik Toussi or Sheik Altaefe was a pioneer who created a movement in different sciences which was followed after him. His leadership was accepted in the Islamic world because of his moderate way for looking the Islamic issues.He was the man of honesty in creating principles in wisdom, purity and narrative. He was the author of many articles and books too.He also was a beloved in quest of God whose enthusiasm did not provoke him to fanaticism. He dedicated his scientific movement to struggle with fanatic actions. He had a great esteem for wisdom, and regarded the religious principles in the domain of wisdom.