عنوان مقاله [English]
According to the majority of viewpoints by Osuli scholars, the citable cases in the process of deduction is confined to unimpeachable evidences and is limited to referring the suspicions whose density is not confirmed due to specific reasons; thus, other suspicions could play an affirmative role which are not considered as an independent reason. Deploying an analytical-deductive method, the current research is to substantiate that referring to weak suspicions is possible in the process of deduction even by not accepting the closure reason, and this trend is observed in the works of scholars such as Shaikh-e Ansāri. The hypothesis of this research is that the density of weak suspicions determines a higher degree of knowledge which is regarded as authority according to jurisprudence and Osul. However, proving this moderate claim depends on responding two basic questions; the first one is that ontologically, is it possible to form knowledge with a high degree of affirmation using the low degree density knowledge? The second question is that does such knowledge enjoy authority? This research concludes that knowledge could be formed in three ranks of certainty, assurance and suspicion aligned with specific suspicion. Due to the natural authority of certainty and customary authority of assurance, if the suspicion density ends in reaching certainty and assurance, the result of deduction is valid, but if the outcome of suspicion density ends in a kind of suspicion aligned with specific suspicions, the validity of such a suspicion is doubtable according to the majority of jurisprudents. Given the validity of suspicion density is proved, its contribution to Islamizing human sciences would be of paramount significance.