نوع مقاله : پژوهشی (داوری عادی)
نویسندگان
1 استاد حوزه علمیه
2 دانشیار و عضو هیئت علمی، گروه علوم قرآن و حدیث، دانشگاه قم، قم، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
The evaluation of jurisprudential news critically hinges on the religious practices and behaviors of scholars regarding hadiths. This topic has long captivated Imami jurists, particularly regarding the acceptability and potential rejection of certain hadiths. Shiite scholars often deem rejected hadiths invalid, with contemporary jurists highlighting that such rejections stem from perceived gaps or deficiencies in the transmission chain. Ignoring the persistent potential for rejection complicates the inference process for jurists and presents challenges in verifying Shiite practice. Accessing jurists' statements entails inherent disadvantages, and addressing these can facilitate successful ijtihad. This article seeks to identify and analyze the shortcomings that have historically hindered the understanding of early Shiite jurists' deviations from seemingly authentic jurisprudential narrations. Two primary disadvantages are examined: first, the reliance on unique interpretations and the credibility of certain jurists’ reports, and second, the errors stemming from ijtihad that do not undermine the authenticity of the narrations in question.
کلیدواژهها [English]
به فایل PDF مراجعه نمایید.
)