Despite the existence of explicit Quranic evidence confirming the validity of documents-such as verse 282 of Surah Al-Baqarah-and the acknowledgment by some jurists of the credibility of documents, with some even prioritizing them over other means of proving a claim, the lack of independent probative value of documents in proving lawsuits has become a widely accepted theory in Imami jurisprudence. This jurisprudential theory, which supports this approach, denies the independent function of documents in proving claims, viewing them merely as complementary to other evidentiary means, and rejects their ability to serve as the sole and independent proof in legal disputes.
In this study, the aforementioned jurisprudential theory is referred to as the "Complementary Function Theory of Documents in Proving Lawsuits." A historical and analytical examination of juristic perspectives reveals that the assumptions and ingrained mental frameworks of jurists-shaped by the historical and geographical circumstances in which they lived, particularly the absence of a strong central government to regulate transactional relationships-played a significant role in the emergence of this theory. Naturally, in an era where a powerful state can effectively regulate such relationships, these assumptions should no longer influence jurisprudential interpretation and legal reasoning.
This article seeks to answer the question: What underlying assumptions have shaped the mindset of jurists to the extent that, despite strong Quranic evidence, the notion of denying the independent validity of documents has gained prominence? By explaining, analyzing, and evaluating the arguments supporting this theory, the study critically examines the role of these assumptions in shaping this jurisprudential perspective.