Re-Examining the Role of Implicit Implications in Jurisprudential Inference

The inference of jurisprudential rules is directly related to the way their evidence is implied. Among the indications, “implicit implication” is very important considering that it has many types. The upcoming research is trying to answer the basic question that how many types of implicit implication play role in deriving a Sharia ruling? By studying and exploring the sources and processing them in a descriptive and analytical way, these results were obtained: More than seven types of implicit implication play role in jurisprudential inference. Presenting detailed cases of jurisprudence proves the importance and role of these indications in deriving Sharia rulings and the lacuna of assigning and determining a place for the discussion of such implications in the discussion of Sharia arguments. Proposing a new plan to compensate for this gap is one of the other achievements of this research

The Study of the Process of Deriving the Edict from the Challenge of the Conflict between Narrative Reason and Rational Reason

The derivation of a jurisprudential edict in a certain path and mechanism sometimes faces challenges that the mujtahid must find a solution to get out of it and complete the issuance of the ruling. One of these challenges is the conflict between a narrative reason and a rational reason, the mechanism of reaching the conclusion of which is the problem of this research, and since it does not have a rich background, it is also an indicator of the novelty of this article compared to similar works. This research in the interdisciplinary geography of jurisprudence and basics of jurisprudence, and in a descriptive-analytical way, has put the process of how to overcome the challenge of the conflict between narrative reason and rational reason under the focus of its main question. The findings of this research show that in the case of conflict, if the narrative reason is valid and the rational reason is not an axiom, the narrative reason takes precedence, and if the rational reason is one of the axioms and certainties, then the rational reason takes precedence over the narrative. The Usulists of Ahl al-Sunnah have a consensus that in the conflict between “Qiyas” (analogy) and single narration, if it is not possible to conform them, the stronger reason is preferable; but they disagree on which one of these two is stronger. However, from the Shiite point of view, due to the inauthenticity of “Qiyas”, such a conflict does not arise