A Comparative Analysis of Designing a Legal System in the Hart's thought and Islamic Law's Thought in terms of Methodology and Epistomology

In The Concept of Law, Herbert Hart seeks to provide a satisfactory analysis of the application of the concept of law in various social behaviors and to construct this concept in order to provide legal provisions and design a new model in the legal system. In this way, the use of speech acts as one of the important elements in the field of discourse analysis and giving in to a kind of skepticism and moderate septicism is evident in his speeches. Due to the spread of this thought in legal scientific societies without paying attention to its philosophical background and without considering its paradigm difference with Islamic thought. In this research, an attempt has been made to study Hart's thought analytically and critically in two fields of methodology and epistemology, relying on Islamic jurisprudential and principled thought, In this way, the identity conflict of the legal system that emerged from the two will be clarified. The findings of the research show that in terms of method, Hart's positivist thought follows a single method in answering all the questions of the legal system, including the questions related to the origin, legitimacy, obligation and validity of the law and the identity of the legal rules and ensuring their provisions. Native Islamic thought cannot answer all the above questions with the same method. In terms of epistemology, Hart's one-sided attitude towards man and his social actions does not guarantee the durability and survival of the law, and the supremacy of human knowledge in the shadow of divine assistance by connecting to the source of revelation, frees him from limitations and guarantees the immortality of the law in the field related to nature.