📝 معرفی مقاله 📚 مناقشة فی اشتراک الأحکام بین العالم و الجاهل مع التأکید علی رأی المحقق المیرزا النّائینی (ره) نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی ✍️ نویسنده: حمید الالهی دوست- مدیر گروه تفسیر و علوم قرآن و عضو هیئت علمی جامعة المصطفی (ص) العالمیة چکیده 💠 أوّل من عبّر بالاشتراک بین العالم و الجاهل هو الشیخ الانصاری و من تأخّر من العلماء اتّبعوه. و یستشهدون لذلک ببعض الادلۀ و القرائن کالإجماع و الضرورۀ و تواتر الاخبار. لکن هذه الادلۀ لا تفی باثبات الاشتراک لأنّ الإجماع مدرکی و منقول؛ و اما تواتر الاخبار فأجاب المحقق النائینی بأنّه لم نعثر علی تلک الأدلّة سوی بعض أخبار الآحاد التی ذکرها صاحب الحدائق فی مقدمات کتابه فکیف بتواترها و الضرورۀ أیضا لم تتحقق لنا. اذن الرأی الصحیح فی الاشتراک متعلق بأبی الحسن الشعرانی v فإنّه أفاد أنّ عدم کون الجاهل مکلّفاً لایستلزم التّصویب و قال: إنّ اشتراک العالم بالحکم و الجاهل حتی القاصر لا دلیل علیه و أنّ الرّفع فی حدیث الرّفع رفعٌ واقعی. و علیه فالاشتراک ثابتٌ بین العالم بالحکم و الجاهل المقصّر دون القاصر. کلیدواژه‌ها #اشتراک_الأحکام #الجاهل #العالم #الغافل #المحقق_النائینی 🔗 دانلود فایل PDF مقاله: مناقشة فی اشتراک الأحکام بین العالم و الجاهل مع التأکید علی رأی المحقق المیرزا النّائینی (ره) ______________________________________ عنوان مقاله [English] The Application of Rulings to Knower and Ignorant, with an Emphasis on the Opinion of Late Muḥaqiq Nāʾīnī (ra) نویسنده [English] Hamīd Ilāhī Dūst Director of the Department of Qur’an Interpretation and Sciences and a member of the Faculty of Al-Mustafa University چکیده [English] The first scholar to bring up the issue of rulings being applicable to both the knower and the ignorant was al-Shaykh Al-Anṣārī, and his successors from the Shiite scholars. They cite some arguments and evidence including consensus, conspicuity, and frequent transmission (tawātur). However, these evidences do not suffice to prove the fact that rules are applicable to both the knower and the ignorant (ishtirāk) because the consensus is either based on evidence (madrakī) or it is also transmitted (manqūl). As for the frequency of the reports, late Muḥaqiq Nāʾīnī has replied that he did not find any evidence except for some single reports that the author of Al-Ḥadāʾiq mentioned in the introductions to his book. So there is no way those single reports could be termed as frequent. On the other hand, conspicuity has not been established according to us either. So, the correct opinion on the subject is related to Abū al-Ḥasan al-Shaʿrānī inasmuch as he declared that the ignorant person who is not held accountable is not required to do what is his exact duty. Accordingly, there is no reason whatsoever that the rules are applicable to the knower and the ignorant even if the latter is innocent. Thus, they are truly relieved of the obligation and not held responsible for what they do not know. The conclusion is that the ruling is applicable to the knower and the one who is guilty of ignorance (culpable). ┅══❉♦️❉══┅ 🕌 مرکز حفظ و نشرآثار حضرت آیت الله میرزای نائینی ره ┏━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┓ 🆔 @mirzanaeini | 💻 mirzanaeini.com ┗━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┛ 🔅 💠🔅 🔅💠🔅 💠🔅💠🔅 🔆💠🔅💠