A research into ‘religionist conduct’, the conditions of its authority and the network of its conceptual relationships
Journal Title: فقه و اصول - Year 2015, Vol 47, Issue 101
Abstract
The present paper aims to refine the conditions of authority of ‘religionist conduct’ and its position among Imamī evidences of inference. The study seeks to eliminate the shortcomings existing in former principle sources through collecting and disciplining relevant fragmented discussions. The first discussion explains the conditions of authority of religionist conduct based on a comparative approach. Here, the relationship between ‘religionist conduct’ and ‘rationalist conduct’ is measured in terms of their reasoning. The second discussion, however, tends to establish the position of ‘religionist conduct’ among other types of reasoning. Here, the authors discuss the relationship between ‘religionist conduct’ and similar established threads such as ‘tradition’, ‘consensus’ and ‘subjective speculation’ (irtikāz), and examine its reasoning position. Among the achievements of this research the following can be listed: the stipulation of the legislator’s agreeing position in terms of the authority of ‘religionist conduct’ and its consideration under narrative and practical tradition (of the Infallibles), the reasoning priority of ‘religionist conduct’ as compared with ‘consensus’, the objective analysis of ‘religionist subjective speculation’ based on ‘religionist conduct’ and its superiority in terms of authority.
Authors and Affiliations
Zahra Sadat Ahmadi Soleimani, Mohammad Taghi Fakhlaee, Mohammad Hasan Haeri
Keywords
Related Articles
- EP ID EP190126
- DOI 10.22067/fiqh.v47i21.26619
- Views 104
- Downloads 0
Judgment Mistake
Judgment mistake has its own complexities for several reasons (difference of expediencies of the two legal/judicial systems, difference of precepts for judgment mistake in judiciary and penal discussions, divisions of va...
Internet panderism from the perspective of Islamic jurisprudence
Internet panderism, in today’s society, is a crime which, due to technological advances, has spread significantly and perhaps, in comparison to traditional panderism, it causes far more losses. Since it is unprecedented,...
Reappraisal of the Nature and Evidences of Waging War (Muḥāriba) in Crimes against Public Order
In Islamic penal law, most of the crimes against national and social security are gathered under the title muḥāriba (waging war); whereas, in jurisprudence, there is disagreement about the nature and criteria of muḥāriba...
Interference of Punishments in Multiple Offences Deserving Legal Punishment and its Challenges
If in multiple offences deserving legal punishment (ḥadd) the perpetrated offences are similar, the punishments interfere and the person is sentenced to one legal punishment. This judgment is disputable from two perspect...
A study of the rule ‘Unforgivable in continuity (survival, sustainability) is not unforgivable in the beginning’
In Islamic jurisprudence we face phrases such as ‘Unforgivable in continuity (survival, sustainability) is not unforgivable in the beginning’ whose context suggest that this is considered by scholars as a known and accep...