A Comparative Study of the Proof of the Silence of the Western Scholars of Hadith and the Rule of “Low Kana Labana” (If there was such a ruling, it would have been revealed) of the Shiite Jurists

In dating Hadiths, orientalists have used an argument called the proof of silence. This argument has led to many controversies and has caused Muslim and Western critics to criticize orientalists such as Schacht and Juynboll. In the meantime, what is challenging and a place for reflection is the similarity between the proof of silence of Western Hadith scholars and the rule of “Low Kana Labana” (If there was such a ruling, it would have been revealed) of the Shiite Jurists and usulists. The present article analyzes the dimensions of these two arguments with a comparative study of the proof of silence of the western Hadith scholars and the rule of ““Low Kana Labana” (If there was such a ruling, it would have been revealed) of the Shiite Jurists. In the proof of silence, the circumstances surrounding the author's condition are the source; but in the rule of “Low Kana Labana” (If there was such a ruling, it would have been revealed), the conditions are determined based on the nature of the problem - everyone's suffering. In both arguments, the importance of the subject is in the role-playing conditions. The condition of not hindering against the recording and fame is also present in both arguments; although it is not specified in the proof of silence. These two arguments are effective in dating and validating Hadiths provided that the conditions of each are met.