نشریه مطالعات اصول فقه امامیه
پیاپی 10 (پاییز و زمستان 1397)

Priority analogy (Qias awlawiyat) is a juridical principle having a lot of functions in the jurisprudence because many rules can be derived by means of it. Given the fact that this issue is rooted in Ilm al-Usul (principles of jurisprudence), efforts have been made in this study to present a precise definition of 'priority analogy' as well as to examine the history of its development. Moreover, the validity of this principles and the source of its validity have been discussed and elaborated upon resulting in the conclusion that 'priority analogy' is considered to be among the verbal proofs and it is something other than the qiyas (analogy) whose invalidity is agreed upon by Shia scholars. Inspired by two narrations from Imam Sadiq (AS) the writer endeavors to prove that every 'priority analogy' cannot be a valid 'analogy', and that the application of this analogy is in need scrutiny in the subject-matter. In this research, attention has been paid to the words of both early and contemporary Shia scholars so that the significance of 'priority analogy' may well become clear. The differentiation of 'priority analogy' from other tools and means of deduction as well determining of the precise criterion concerning the authority of 'priority analogy' are among the goals of this article. The research follows a method involving the analysis of contents and premises.

One of the disciplines extensively applied in other sciences including religious texts is the discipline of the principles of Islamic jurisprudence or what is generally known as Usul-e Fiqh. The principles and rules used in this branch of knowledge are applicable in other disciplines which are studied in the seminaries and universities such as tafsir (commentary of the Holy Quran), theology, law and history. Therefore, attention and importance have been given to teaching of this branch of knowledge in the seminaries and universities. Meanwhile, efforts are being made to make this discipline applicable as well as to demonstrate areas where this discipline can be used. This would motivate the students to learn the significance of this discipline and pay further attention to it. Likewise, Hawzah and university researchers would embark on writing more educational books focusing on the application of this discipline in areas like jurisprudence and law. The book Usul-e Fiqh Karburdi (Applied Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence) is one of such books which seek to explain the principles of Ilm al-Usul in the form of real and solid examples from legal articles in law. In this study, the aforementioned book has been critically assessed so that not only is the applied educational method is affirmed and approved in various disciplines including Usul-e Fiqh but it will also pave the way for scientific assistance causing scholars and academicians to pay more attention to this educational approach.

The container of existential matters is different from that of legislative ones. Therefore, the orientation between real science and mentally-posited sciences is essentially different. Islamic Jurisprudence and it is principles (Usul) are considered to be among the mentally-posited sciences while philosophy is considered to be among the true sciences. For this reason, rational premises or rules cannot be used in mentally-posited sciences such jurisprudence and legal theories. Similarly, mentally-posited premises and statements cannot be used in true sciences. In fact, if the issue can be assumed as true, it is possible to use rational rules. When it comes to making declaratory (wad'ei) laws, some scholars are of the view that the enactment of such laws is existential (takvini) while others believe that it is legislative (tashri'ei), and a third group has adopted a middle approach between the two. If the declaratory laws are proved to be essentially legislated, in this case, since the subject is a real matter, it is then possible to make use of real sciences (e.g. philosophical rules) in its issues because the object of the issue is a real not legislative thing.

Many disciplines owe their credit and validity to other sciences. Ilm al-Usul is a discipline of Islamic studies which owes its credit and validity partially to theology and its principles. A lot of theological rules have been used in various issues of legal and jurisprudential principles. The principle "God's actions are caused by motives" is a rational principle per se and it has been affirmed by verses 28 and 39 of Chapter al-Dukhan where the Quran says, "And We did not create the heavens and the earth and what is between them in sport. We did not create them both but with the truth, but most of them do not know." This study seeks to mention the opinions of theologians about the rule as well as those of the exegetes about the verses. Thereupon, the effect of those principles and verses on legal studies have been clearly mentioned and it becomes clear as to how far they have influenced the verbal discussions, rational concomitance, validity (authoritativeness) and practical laws in a way that it can be considered as one of the presuppositions of the affirmative foundations of the issues of Ilm al-Usul.

The present article seeks to study the validity of solitary reports concerning objects. Given that most of the objects are proved through a single report and that solitary reports do not result in anything other than mere surmise, this discussion is crucial to the issue at hand.
The writer deals with the question which he brings up in the course of studying this topic, "What are the opinions of religious scholars about the validity or invalidity of solitary reports regarding objects?" Assuming that in those cases where certainty and knowledge have not been stipulated, a solitary report can be used to obtain information. By using a descriptive and analytical method and reliable evidence on the authoritativeness of a solitary report in the objects as well as by making use of first hand juridical and legal sources, the author has reached the following procedures: In view of the normative conduct of the wise and that the Lawgiver has not disapproved of it as well as the fact that there are many reports, the authoritativeness of solitary reports is established in the objects, and that the arguments presented by the opponents such as Mas'adah b. Sadaqah to reject the said normative conduct would not be acceptable. According to the writer, the proofs and reasons such as the conduct of the wise to substantiate the authoritativeness of solitary reports are stronger to the extent that the opponents' arguments cannot withstand them.

The principle of no harm (Qa'eda la zarar) is one of the best known principles of jurisprudence. This principle derives directly from a well-known saying of the holy Prophet (S) who said, "There is no harming and no self-inflicted harm in Islam" and it is a principle that is corroborated by the Quran and endorsed by man's sound intellect. In addition to discrepancies among jurists surrounding the meaning of zarar and zirar, the function of this principle has always been a matter of controversy. Nevertheless, the interpretation that has been most welcomed is the "negation of any laws that involve harm". Likewise, if there is any law that might involve harm, then the law will cease to be put into practice because of the 'principle of no harm'. What is contended by jurists and a lot of them have not accepted is whether or not they have the ability to repel harms that may come by as a result of the absence of a law in a religious context. An answer to this question shall reveal the efficiency of this principle in social issues.