Jurisprudence and reason (book)

Line 51:

According to Abulqasem Alidoost, a professor of Kharij Fiqh and Usul al-Fiqh in Qom seminary, the reason can recognize the meaning of Sharia rulings by observing the frameworks and rules of conventional seminary ijtihad and also discover the purposes of Sharia by using the Quran and Narration. As a result, it is possible to understand the rulings in a system and body whose components are coordinated with each other. The book seeks to expand the accountability of the Sharia to more diverse issues by promoting the independent position of reason in deriving rulings and rereading it in a coherent system.

According to the book of jurisprudence and reason, although the purposes of the Sharia have a strong role in deriving rulings, in this respect one should use reason in a systematic manner and do such a thing according to the texts expressing the purposes in the book and the Sunnah. In this regard, Abulqasem Alidoost believes that neglecting the purposes of the Sharia in deriving rulings causes fatwas to become illegal.

In the current book, Abulqasem Alidoost emphasizes the necessity of simultaneously paying attention to both independent and non-independent applications of reason in deriving rulings. He also disagrees with following all rulings based on real interests and corruptions, and states that sometimes the enactment of a ruling may not be due to expediency or expediency, and that legislation itself causes the creation of posterior expediency. He also explains in detail the rule reason and the rule of Sharia and points out the opposition of jurists such as ~~Seyyyed~~ [[~~Abulqasem~~ Khoei]] and [[Sheikh Morteza Ansari]] to this principle. Furthermore, he points to cases of the use of reason in discovering the meaning of rulings by them to show that the mentioned jurists relied on it in practice while theoretically opposed to the inherent rule.

In the current book, Abulqasem Alidoost emphasizes the necessity of simultaneously paying attention to both independent and non-independent applications of reason in deriving rulings. He also disagrees with following all rulings based on real interests and corruptions, and states that sometimes the enactment of a ruling may not be due to expediency or expediency, and that legislation itself causes the creation of posterior expediency. He also explains in detail the rule reason and the rule of Sharia and points out the opposition of jurists such as [[Sayyid Abolqassem Musavi Khoei]] and [[Sheikh Morteza Ansari]] to this principle. Furthermore, he points to cases of the use of reason in discovering the meaning of rulings by them to show that the mentioned jurists relied on it in practice while theoretically opposed to the inherent rule.

== The Author ==

Line 111:

=== Confusion in the words of opposing jurists ===

After explaining the major premise of the rule of correlation between reason and law, the book goes to the minor premise of rule of correlation between reason and law to clarify to what extent the reason can discover the meaning and reason of the rulings of Sharia. Abulqasem Alidoost mentions some examples of the fundamentalists who deny the principle of rule of correlation between reason and law to show that the opponents of the rule of rule of correlation between reason and law who believe that reason is absolutely unable to understand the meaning of rulings, have not fully adhered to this opinion. Finally, he concluded that the practice of jurists shows that, in short, reason is the source that they have made an inference. This means that the jurist has reached the criteria of the religious ruling with his reason and then derives the ruling (pp. 125-127); Some of these jurists are:

# In some cases, ~~Seyyed Abulqasem Khoei considers~~ it probable that the reason reaches the rulings and sometimes gives fatwas with trust in the reason. For example, regarding the permissibility or impermissibility of delaying the expiation of fasting, the delay is not permissible, unless he is sure that he will be able to perform it in the future. Then he considers reason as the only source of this ruling.

# In some cases, Sayyid Abolqassem Musavi Khoeiconsiders it probable that the reason reaches the rulings and sometimes gives fatwas with trust in the reason. For example, regarding the permissibility or impermissibility of delaying the expiation of fasting, the delay is not permissible, unless he is sure that he will be able to perform it in the future. Then he considers reason as the only source of this ruling.

# Sheikh Ansari sometimes relied solely on reason in deriving the religious ruling. For example, when he wants to prove the permissibility of dealing with property that the owner did not allow, he considers small possessions of property belonging to others to be permissible as a definite ruling of reason.

== Pathology of inference using reason ==

@@ Line 51: / Line 51: @@
 According to Abulqasem Alidoost, a professor of Kharij Fiqh and Usul al-Fiqh in Qom seminary, the reason can recognize the meaning of Sharia rulings by observing the frameworks and rules of conventional seminary ijtihad and also discover the purposes of Sharia by using the Quran and Narration. As a result, it is possible to understand the rulings in a system and body whose components are coordinated with each other. The book seeks to expand the accountability of the Sharia to more diverse issues by promoting the independent position of reason in deriving rulings and rereading it in a coherent system.
 According to the book of jurisprudence and reason, although the purposes of the Sharia have a strong role in deriving rulings, in this respect one should use reason in a systematic manner and do such a thing according to the texts expressing the purposes in the book and the Sunnah. In this regard, Abulqasem Alidoost believes that neglecting the purposes of the Sharia in deriving rulings causes fatwas to become illegal.
-In the current book, Abulqasem Alidoost emphasizes the necessity of simultaneously paying attention to both independent and non-independent applications of reason in deriving rulings. He also disagrees with following all rulings based on real interests and corruptions, and states that sometimes the enactment of a ruling may not be due to expediency or expediency, and that legislation itself causes the creation of posterior expediency. He also explains in detail the rule reason and the rule of Sharia and points out the opposition of jurists such as Seyyyed [[Abulqasem Khoei]] and [[Sheikh Morteza Ansari]] to this principle. Furthermore, he points to cases of the use of reason in discovering the meaning of rulings by them to show that the mentioned jurists relied on it in practice while theoretically opposed to the inherent rule.
+In the current book, Abulqasem Alidoost emphasizes the necessity of simultaneously paying attention to both independent and non-independent applications of reason in deriving rulings. He also disagrees with following all rulings based on real interests and corruptions, and states that sometimes the enactment of a ruling may not be due to expediency or expediency, and that legislation itself causes the creation of posterior expediency. He also explains in detail the rule reason and the rule of Sharia and points out the opposition of jurists such as [[Sayyid Abolqassem Musavi Khoei]] and [[Sheikh Morteza Ansari]] to this principle. Furthermore, he points to cases of the use of reason in discovering the meaning of rulings by them to show that the mentioned jurists relied on it in practice while theoretically opposed to the inherent rule.
 == The Author ==
@@ Line 111: / Line 111: @@
 === Confusion in the words of opposing jurists ===
 After explaining the major premise of the rule of correlation between reason and law, the book goes to the minor premise of rule of correlation between reason and law to clarify to what extent the reason can discover the meaning and reason of the rulings of Sharia. Abulqasem Alidoost mentions some examples of the fundamentalists who deny the principle of rule of correlation between reason and law to show that the opponents of the rule of rule of correlation between reason and law who believe that reason is absolutely unable to understand the meaning of rulings, have not fully adhered to this opinion. Finally, he concluded that the practice of jurists shows that, in short, reason is the source that they have made an inference. This means that the jurist has reached the criteria of the religious ruling with his reason and then derives the ruling (pp. 125-127); Some of these jurists are:
-# In some cases, Seyyed Abulqasem Khoei considers it probable that the reason reaches the rulings and sometimes gives fatwas with trust in the reason. For example, regarding the permissibility or impermissibility of delaying the expiation of fasting, the delay is not permissible, unless he is sure that he will be able to perform it in the future. Then he considers reason as the only source of this ruling.
+# In some cases, Sayyid Abolqassem Musavi Khoeiconsiders it probable that the reason reaches the rulings and sometimes gives fatwas with trust in the reason. For example, regarding the permissibility or impermissibility of delaying the expiation of fasting, the delay is not permissible, unless he is sure that he will be able to perform it in the future. Then he considers reason as the only source of this ruling.
 # Sheikh Ansari sometimes relied solely on reason in deriving the religious ruling. For example, when he wants to prove the permissibility of dealing with property that the owner did not allow, he considers small possessions of property belonging to others to be permissible as a definite ruling of reason.
 == Pathology of inference using reason ==

Jurisprudence and reason (book): Difference between revisions