Jurisprudence and reason (book): Difference between revisions
| Line 132: | Line 132: | ||
In the fourth and last part of the book, together with the conclusion, it mentions the source of the harms in inference and then the harms of referring to reason and its application in the inference of Sharia rulings. It has been clarified that this process may cause abuse by the enemies of Sharia in the contemporary world and this illusion It showed that the Shari’a was limited to a certain time and place, and as a result, in the present era, the thoughts that fit the conditions of the new age should be replaced with the Sharia. In this regard, while paying attention to the origin of the harms related to the use of reason in inference, Abolqassem Alidoost has also listed examples of these harms. | In the fourth and last part of the book, together with the conclusion, it mentions the source of the harms in inference and then the harms of referring to reason and its application in the inference of Sharia rulings. It has been clarified that this process may cause abuse by the enemies of Sharia in the contemporary world and this illusion It showed that the Shari’a was limited to a certain time and place, and as a result, in the present era, the thoughts that fit the conditions of the new age should be replaced with the Sharia. In this regard, while paying attention to the origin of the harms related to the use of reason in inference, Abolqassem Alidoost has also listed examples of these harms. | ||
=== The origin of harms in inference === | === The origin of harms in inference === | ||
The origin of the harm related to the use of reason in inference is divided into two categories; 1. unnecessary | The origin of the harm related to the use of reason in inference is divided into two categories; 1. unnecessary rigidity concerning words, and 2. Intellectualism and lack of devotion (pp. 226-227). | ||
=== Harms of using reason in deriving rulings === | === Harms of using reason in deriving rulings === | ||
In this context, the book mentions three harms that jurists should avoid: | In this context, the book mentions three harms that jurists should avoid: | ||
| Line 138: | Line 138: | ||
Improper use of reason: To distinguish the subjects of rulings such as water and blood or instances of subjects such as absolute and added water, one must refer to custom, not reason (p. 190). Because there is a strong possibility that reason will make mistakes in recognizing things that are common in nature. | Improper use of reason: To distinguish the subjects of rulings such as water and blood or instances of subjects such as absolute and added water, one must refer to custom, not reason (p. 190). Because there is a strong possibility that reason will make mistakes in recognizing things that are common in nature. | ||
The mistake of the wisdom of the ruling with the subject of the ruling: According to Abolqassem Alidoost, every ruling has a subject on which the ruling is made, and it has a wisdom that is assigned to that subject because of that ruling. For example, prayer is the subject of the ruling on the obligation of prayer, and its wisdom is to prevent fornication and malevolence. Therefore, it is not possible to cancel the nature of the obligation of prayer and consider any act that prohibits fornication and malevolence as obligatory (pp. 191-192). | The mistake of the wisdom of the ruling with the subject of the ruling: According to Abolqassem Alidoost, every ruling has a subject on which the ruling is made, and it has a wisdom that is assigned to that subject because of that ruling. For example, prayer is the subject of the ruling on the obligation of prayer, and its wisdom is to prevent fornication and malevolence. Therefore, it is not possible to cancel the nature of the obligation of prayer and consider any act that prohibits fornication and malevolence as obligatory (pp. 191-192). | ||
== references == | == references == | ||
{{references}} | {{references}} | ||