فصلنامه پژوهش های اصولی
پیاپی 10 (پاییز 1390)

This article is going to discuss views of the researcher Naraghi and the researcher Khouie that distinguished between the Presumption of continuity (Istishab) in the doubtful declarative statements and in the doubtful subjects. This distinguishing does not stem from deficiency of traditions (Ahadis) which proof authenticity of the Presumption of continuity (Istishab) because generality of the valid tradition, which was narreted by Zorareh, indicates that the Presumption of continuity (Istishab) in the doubtful declarative statements and in the doubtful subjects is the same. However, this distinguishment stems from conflictness between the Presumption of continuity of the persistence of what was coinaged and the Presumption of continuity of the non-existent of what was coinaged as redundant. Some scholars as sheikh Ansari, the researcher Khorasani and the researcher Naeini had rejected the researcher Naraghi's view, but the researcher Khouie and also the researcher sadr supported from it, by offering this view in the new version.

The interaction of causes and effects is one of the most important discussions in the Usul al-Figh. The conclusion of this essay that can be obtained from Ijtehadi’s proofs and procedural principles is: non-existence of interaction absolutely, neither in the causes nor in the effects.

Certainly, signs (amarat) and procedural principles could be substitute instead of certain knowledge (qat’) to the judgment (hokm). However, substitution of signs and procedural principles instead of certain knowledge (qat’) to the judgment (hokm) when locates as subject of the judgment (hokm) is questionable. Could be substitute non-certain knowledge (zann) both instead of certain knowledge (qat’) and instead of certain knowledge (qat’) to the judgment (hokm) when locates as subject of the same judgment (hokm) by the single implication? Sheikh Ansari accepted the former and rejected the latter. The researcher Khorasani also has rejected the latter in reality. The researcher Esfahani although have not accepted the Khorasani’s proof, but is of the same idea with Khorasani. The professor Larijani argues that substitution of signs and procedural principles instead of certain knowledge (qat’) to the judgment (hokm) when locates as subject of the same judgment (hokm) is possible both in reality and in demonstration.

This research is going to descriptive theories of meaning. The discussion about nature of meaning is one of the principles of science of text interpretation. So theory of meaning has an important role in the interpretation of text in general, and in the interpretation of religious text in especial. In this essay, in the first stage, some of the most important theories of meaning are evaluated by analyzing. In the second stage the relation between words and meaning, scope of meaning and facts are explained. In addition, the theory of nomenclaturism with characteristic of generality is justified. This essay is going to comparative principles, proofs and requirements of theories of meaning.

This article pathologizes the tradition-oriented approach in interpretation and understanding of Qur’an, and puts under scrutiny the problem of its authenticity of appearances (zohur), and views of shia’ and sunni’s traditionalists about it. Finally, a new version of their proofs in rejecting of Qur’anic appearances presented. In this version, the proofs of traditionalists in three fields discussed: the implication of Qur’an, language of Qur’an, and indication of Qur’an. In the field of implication of Qur’an, the claim of especiality of implication of Qur’an argued. In the field of language of Qur’an, the claim of complexity and similarity of language argued. Moreover, in the field of indication of Qur’an, the claim of to be non-certain and invalidity of indication of Qur’an are discussed.