نوع مقاله : پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانش آموخته دکتری فقه و مبانی حقوق اسلامی دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، ایران.
2 دانشیار، گروه فقه و حقوق اسلامی، دانشگاه بزرگمهر قائنات، قائن، ایران.
3 پژوهشگر پسا دکتری، علوم قرآن و حدیث، دانشکده الهیات، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، مشهد، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
The present study, noting the existing research gap, comparatively examines the jurisprudential methodologies of Imamiyya and Ahl al-Sunnah regarding the issue of temporary marriage (Mut'ah). The findings of this research, conducted using a descriptive-analytical method and by referring to library sources, indicate that this dispute, beyond being a mere interpretive debate, is rooted in the confrontation of two distinct methodological systems. The Sunni model, centered on the coherence of the jurisprudential system and the primacy of consensus (ijma'), employs three strategies: "Maqasidi Jurisprudence," "Managing Hadith Contradictions," and "Constructing Consensus" to arrive at the theory of "abrogation (naskh)" of the Mut'ah ruling and its ultimate prohibition. In contrast, the Imamiyya model, by prioritizing definitive texts (nass), utilizes the tools of "Specification (takhsis) instead of Abrogation," "Impermissibility of Abrogating the Quran with a Solitary Report (khabar al-wahid)," and "The Authority of the Interpretation by the Ahl al-Bayt (AS)" to prove the continued permissibility of Mut'ah. The final conclusion of the research suggests that the origin of this dispute lies in the differences in epistemological foundations, the hierarchy of evidence, and the methodology of inference (istinbat) between the two schools.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)