نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دکتری فقه و مبانی حقوق اسلامی، دانشکدۀ الهیات و معارف اسلامی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، مشهد، ایران.
2 دانشیار، گروه فقه و مبانی حقوق اسلامی، دانشکدۀ الهیات و معارف اسلامی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، مشهد، ایران.
3 استاد، گروه فقه و مبانی حقوق اسلامی، دانشکدۀ الهیات و معارف اسلامی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، مشهد، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Previous studies on the concept of "Certainty-Bound Scope" (Qadr Mutayaqan) have primarily focused on theoretical discussions or have been limited to a single jurisprudential school. This reveals a gap in conducting an objective and practical comparative examination of this principle within the intellectual frameworks of the two main schools of Imami jurisprudence: the Uṣūlī and the Akhbārī. The present research, by focusing on this issue, undertakes a comparative analysis of the position of "Certainty-Bound Scope" in deriving jurisprudential rulings from the perspectives of Ṣāḥib al-Jawāhir (representing the Uṣūlī school) and Muḥaddith al-Baḥrānī (representing the Akhbārī school). The main research question is: how do these two jurists apply the principle of "Certainty-Bound Scope" in deriving rulings, and what impact do their methodological differences have on jurisprudential outcomes? The aim of the research is to conduct a comparative analysis of the application of this principle in three jurisprudential issues: drinking water during the Witr prayer, the condition of consecutiveness (Tawālī) in menstruation, and the manner of performing dry ablution (Tayammum) in order to elucidate the distinctions between the Uṣūlī and Akhbārī schools. Employing a descriptive–analytical method and examining primary juristic texts, the study extracts and compares the views of the two scholars. The comparative analysis of these three jurisprudential issues revealed that Ṣāḥib al-Jawāhir's approach to "Certainty-Bound Scope" is dynamic. Operating within a framework of a hierarchy of evidences, it leads to systematic juristic inference and allows for the expansion of a ruling when there is no impediment. In contrast, Muḥaddith al-Baḥrānī's essentially suspensive commitment to these principal confines inference to cautious textual compilation and limits it to the explicit textual scope (Naṣṣ). This methodological distinction, rooted in the epistemological foundations of the two schools, directly affects the capacity of Islamic jurisprudence to respond to emerging and unprecedented legal issues (Masāʾil Mustaḥdathah).
کلیدواژهها [English]
قرآن کریم. (1383ش). ترجمه حسین انصاریان. قم: اسوه.
)