نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسنده
دانشیار گروه فقه و حقوق شافعی، دانشگاه کردستان ، سنندج، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]
The concept of ʔæfw also referred to as la-hukm (“absence of ruling”), mæskūt ʔæn hukmihi (“that whose ruling is unspoken”), or khælu min-æl-hukm (“devoid of ruling”) as per its proponents, constitutes a distinct category outside the framework of ʔæhkām tæklīfiyyah (obligatory, prohibited, recommended, and disliked rulings) and ahkām wædhʔiyyah (constitutive or situational rulings). It is intermediary between the lawful (hælal) and the unlawful (hæram). Due to the absence of any explicit legal evidence (dælīl) or divine address (khitab) concerning it, ʔæfw differs from mubah (permissible), and even its status as a legal ruling is contested among scholars. Conversely, some jurists deny the existence of a separate category called ʔæfw, arguing that its alleged instances fall either within ʔibahæh and hælal or can be subsumed under bæraʔæh ʔæsliyyæh (presumption of non-liability) or inferred through intrinsic good and evil (husn wæ-qubh dhatī). Each group supports its stance through both rational and transmitted arguments. This study employed a descriptive–analytic approach based on content analysis and draws upon ʔusūl-æl-fiqh sources across Islamic schools of thought. It concluded in favor of recognizing ʔæfw as an independent and valid jurisprudential category, thus supporting the position of its proponents.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)