نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دکتری فقه و مبانی حقوق اسلامی، دانشگاه مازندران، بابلسر، ایران.
2 استاد فقه و مبانی حقوق اسلامی، دانشگاه مازندران، بابلسر، ایران (نویسنده مسئول)
3 استادیار فقه و مبانی حقوق اسلامی، دانشگاه مازندران، بابلسر، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
This study seeks to answer the fundamental question of whether the principle of necessitation between reason and Shari'a (al-mulāzama bayna al-‘aql wa al-shar‘) can lead us, in the process of legislation and fatwa issuance, to a rational and effective understanding of justice in addressing this question, the authors first explore the historical background of this principle and analyze the meaning of its constituent terms within the context of Shi'a jurisprudential thought they argue that, notwithstanding the absence of an explicit textual basis (naṣṣ) for this principle and the lack of consensus (ijmā‘) among jurists regarding it, the principle suffers from two major flaws: ambiguity in the meaning of its terms and propositions on the one hand, and internal contradictions on the other.
By identifying these inconsistencies and fundamental flaws through a library-based research method and analytical reasoning, the authors claim-using a novel formulation-that even assuming its validity, the principle of necessitation cannot serve as a reliable foundation for understanding justice in a conventional or common-sense manner in the modern world accordingly, it cannot contribute meaningfully to our comprehension of justice in the processes of ijtihād, fatwā, or legislation therefore, if one seeks to defend the rule-based conceptualization of justice and to promote a conventional understanding thereof, it becomes necessary to search for clearer and more robust justifications.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)