A Reflection on the Presumption of Reliability of Rational Conjectures; A Critique of the Paper “A critical review of Fanaei's view of validity of rational and experimental conjectures”

In traditional jurisprudence, only certain doubts have validity and validity. Some contemporary thinkers have challenged the principle of the unreasonableness of rational suspicion and consider the arguments of traditional jurisprudence on this claim to be incomplete. In issues 92 and 96 of the Journal of Critique and Opinion, an article by Hossein Kamkar was published criticizing the claim of Abolghasem Fanaei and defending the principle of lack of authority of intellectual suspicion. In this article, Naqd has tried to establish the principle of irrationality of intellectual suspicions and to respond to the problems of Abolghasem Fanaei and criticize his arguments. In our opinion, his attempt to critique the arguments of annihilation and defend traditional jurisprudence is incomplete, and the principle of the authority of rational suspicion (annihilation claim) remains unchallenged. The main drawbacks of Kamkar's article are the methodological weakness, the poor critique of the deadly evidence, the inaccuracy in the issuance and implication of the hadith, and the lack of attention to the precedence of rational arguments over narration. The author believes that the authority of intellectual suspicion is inseparable from the Shari'a.