A Reflection on the Presumption of Reliability of Rational Conjectures; A Critique of the Paper “A critical review of Fanaei's view of validity of rational and experimental conjectures”

Document Type : The Quarterly Jornal

Authors

1 PhD, Imami Theology, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 tehran un

Abstract

In the traditional jurisprudence, it is said that there is a presumption in favor of the unreliability of conjectures (ẓunūn), and only certain conjec-tures, buttressed with reliable evidence, are reliable or authoritative. Some contemporary intellectuals have challenged the unreliability of rational conjectures, believing that evidence adduced for the above claim in the traditional jurisprudence does not go through. In volumes 92 and 96 of Naqd va Nazar, an article was published by Hossein Kamkar in critique of Abolqasem Fanaei’s claim and in defense of the principle of the unreliability of rational conjectures. The critic tries to establish the principle of the unreliability of rational conjectures (the claim in tradi-tional jurisprudence), responds to Abolqasem Fanaei’s objections, and raises objections against his arguments. In my view, the critic’s attempt to undermine Fanaei’s arguments and defend the traditional jurispru-dence fails, and the principle of reliability of rational conjectures (Fanaei’s claim) is flawless. Drawing on a rational-analytic method, the paper seeks to show the implausibility of the claim by the traditional jurisprudence to the effect that conjectures are unreliable, and indeed the contrary is plausible and reasonable; that is, the idea that the pre-sumption is in favor of the reliability of all conjectures except in cases where there is conclusive evidence for their unreliability. The conclusion I draw from my consideration of the two papers by Hossein Kamkar is that his objections against Fanaei’s claim involve negligence of chains of transmissions and implications of hadiths and of the priority of rational evidence over transmitted evidence. I believe that the religious legisla-tor could not rule out the reliability of rational conjectures, arguments adduced by Muslim jurists and scholars of principles of jurisprudence are not sufficiently cogent, and rational conjectures are like certitudes essen-tially reliable.

Keywords

References

1.    al-Kulayni. (1407 AH). al-Kafi (A. A. Ghaffari, Ed.). Tehran: Islamic Bookstore. [In Arabic]
2.    Fanaei, A. (1389 AP). Ethics of theology. Tehran: Negah-e Mo'aser. [In Persian]
3.    Hakim, M. T. (1418 AH). General principles in comparative jurisprudence. Qom: Ahl al-Bayt (AS) World Assembly. [In Arabic]
4.    Hashemi Shahroudi, S. M. (1417 AH). Research in the science of Fiqh. Qom: Publication of the Encyclopedia of Islamic Jurisprudence. [In Arabic]
5.    Hashemi Shahroudi, S. M. (1434 AH). Mawsuat of Shahid Thani. Qom: Islamic Sciences and Culture Academy. [In Arabic]
6.    Iraqi, A. (1420 AH). Maqamat al-Usul. Qom: Islamic Thought Association. [In Arabic]
7.    Kamkar, H. (1397 AP). A Critical Study of Fanaei's View on the Legitimacy of Rational Suspicion (1). Naqd va Nazar, 23(92), pp. 28-54.
8.    Kamkar, H. (1398 AP). Critical study of Fanai's view on the legitimacy of rational suspicion (2). Naqd va Nazar, 24(96), pp. 51-75. [In Persian]
9.    Khomeini, M. (1418 AH). Tahrirat fi al-usul. Qom: Imam Khomeini Publishing House. [In Arabic]
10.    Khorasani, M. K. (1388 AP). Kifayat al-usul (M. Qoliypour al-Jilani). Qom: Qom Seminary Management Center. [In Arabic]
11.    Muzaffar, M. R. (1383). Usul al-Fiqh. Qom: Dar al-Fikr. [In Arabic]
12.    Qomashi, S. (1384 AP). The position of reason in inferring rulings. Qom: Islamic Sciences and Culture Academy. [In Persian]
13.    Tabatabaei Hakim, M. S. (1414 AH). al-Muhkam fi Usul al-Fiqh. Qom: al-Manar Foundation. [In Arabic]
14.    Taqawi Eshtehardi, H. (1418 AH). Tanqih al-usul. Tehran: Imam Khomeini Publishing House. [In Arabic]
15.    Tehrani, S. M. H. (1436 AH). Risalah fi al-Qat' wa al-Zan. Mashhad: Allameh Tabatabaei Publishing. [In Arabic]
 

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics