نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
عنوان مقاله English
نویسندگان English
Abstract
The discussion of the Lawgiver's silence is one of the fundamental topics in the principles of Islamic jurisprudence, bearing a direct connection to the sources of legal inference. The central question is whether the Lawgiver has remained silent on certain matters, and if so, what implications this silence holds for Islamic legal rulings. This study, employing an analytical-descriptive method and a comparative approach, examines the concept, categories, foundations, and effects of the Lawgiver's silence from the perspectives of the two jurisprudential schools of Sunni and Imami thought. The findings reveal three major theories in this regard: the theory of comprehensiveness (maximalism), the theory of non-comprehensiveness (with its two branches of particularism and universalism), and the theory of moderation, which acknowledges the "discretionary zone" (minṭaqat al-farāgh) and the role of reason and rational conduct in complementing religious laws. The theory of moderation is presented as the preferred view due to its compatibility with the principles and objectives of Sharia and its responsiveness to changing human needs. By providing comparative examples from the realms of worship and transactions, the article illustrates the practical application of the Lawgiver's silence in the inference of legal rulings.
کلیدواژهها English
