نوع مقاله : علمی ترویجی
نویسندگان
1 دانشیار، گروه فقه و مبانی حقوق اسلامی، دانشگاه علوم اسلامی رضوی، مشهد، ایران.
2 استادیار، گروه فقه و مبانی حقوق اسلامی ، دانشگاه عدالت، تهران، ایران.
3 دانشآموخته دکتری فقه و حقوق جزا، دانشگاه مذاهب، تهران، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
When two narrations conflict without the possibility of ordinary reconciliation, the stronger narration (Murajjḥ) must be chosen. One established criterion for Murajjḥiyya is opposition to the (ʿāmmah), as narrations aligning with the their view are often regarded as precautionary dissimulation (taqiyyah) and thus less authoritative. However, jurists differ over the definition of “ʿāmmah”: some interpret it as the four Sunni madhhabs, others as oppressive rulers or judges, and some equate it with Abu Hanifa or his Jurisprudential opinions. This study employs an analytical approach to assess the validity of using Abu Hanifa as a criterion for resolving conflicting narrations. The main reason for rejecting this criterion is the insufficient scientific evidence supporting Abu Hanifa’s legal influence during his lifetime and the weak credibility of claims about his intentional opposition to Imam al-Ṣādiq . Given Abu Hanifa’s historical context—marked by intellectual openness, respect for the Prophet’s family, and non-cooperation with some rulers—this criterion lacks scientific reliability. The findings aid jurists in better understanding sources of narrational conflict and achieving more precise and justified conclusions. The study also calls for a comprehensive reassessment of criteria for Murajjḥiyya within Usul al-Fiqh.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)