نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 استاد درس خارج فقه و اصول حوزه علمیه قم، قم ، ایران
2 مدرس سطح عالی فقه و اصول، حوزه علمیه قم
3 گروه فقه و حقوق، دانشکدگان فارابی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
The issue of whether "compliance following compliance" is rationally possible or impossible is a pivotal debate in Islamic legal theory (Uṣūl al-Fiqh), significantly impacting juridical rulings. The core question is whether a mukallaf, after fulfilling a mandatory religious injunction, may repeat it. Many Uṣūl scholars, citing cessation of purpose, futility, contradiction, and abrogation of the divine command, deem repetition rationally impossible, arguing that initial compliance fulfills the Lawgiver’s purpose, nullifying the command and rendering further compliance meaningless. This study, using an analytical-descriptive approach, affirms the theoretical possibility of repeated compliance and refutes its rational impossibility by analyzing the nature of legal command (khiṭāb qānūnī). It establishes that the command’s object is a generic nature, not tied to specific persons or instances. Thus, denying the possibility of repetition, like affirming its obligation, requires valid evidence. Legal propositions follow generic purposes, unfulfilled by singular acts, and assuming a command’s abrogation post-compliance lacks evidence, as it contradicts the normative essence of legal command. Hence, secondary compliance is rationally possible.
کلیدواژهها [English]
