نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دکتری، فلسفه اخلاق، دانشکده فلسفه، دانشگاه ادیان و مذاهب، قم، ایران
2 سطح چهار، حوزه علمیه قم، قم، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
In Sunni jurisprudence, analogy is known as the fourth source of inference, after the Quran, Sunnah, and consensus, and is used in cases where there are no religious/Quranic texts on an issue. In contrast, the Shiite school does not allow the use of analogy. Instead
of comparing jurisprudential differences analyses, the present study aims to explain
and clarify the concept of analogy from a phenomenological perspective and without unscientific prejudices. In this study, the position of analogy in the inference of jurisprudential evidence, especially in innovative and everyday mundane cases, as well as the separation between acts of worship, godliness and transactions, and the assessment of the capacity of analogy as a rational tool for solving new problems are examined. One of the innovations of this study is the emphasis on the separation between acts of worship, godliness and transactions as a scientific development in the principles of jurisprudence. This distinction is vividly made in response to the question of whether analogy is applicable in both the realms of Godliness and transactions. In the case of godliness, which is based on worship and is outside the realm of rational understanding, analogy is not applicable, because in these cases, the benefits and harms are beyond rational understanding. However, in the case of transactions, which are intelligible; the intellect has the ability to understand their benefits and harms, analogy is used effectively. The scope of application of analogy is when there is no specific text for the subject and the intellect also has the ability to understand its benefits and harms. This distinction between Godliness and transactions can eliminate many of the problems in the use of analogy and is particularly helpful in newly emerging jurisprudential issues. In addition to analogy, the fruits of this distinction are also significant in other jurisprudential issues, such as proxy acceptance and the issue of innovation. This distinction is useful not only in solving new jurisprudential issues, but also in preventing misunderstandings and confusions in jurisprudence. Finally, the present study analyzes the different meanings of analogy, the conditions for the validity and validity of analogy, and explains correct credited and valid analogy. The principles of legislation regarding acts of Godliness are different from the principles of legislation regarding positive transactions and customs. In the case of Godliness and acts of worship, the principle is based on pure worship and analogy cannot be applied in such cases, but in the case of transactions, the principle is based on rationality and reasonableness and analogy is without problems in this area. This fundamental difference in the principles of jurisprudence affects the position and application of analogy and indicates the importance of distinguishing between these two issues in jurisprudential inferences.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)