نشریه فقه و اجتهاد
پیاپی 17 (بهار و تابستان 1401)

In Islam, permanent marriage with more than one woman (up to four women) is not prohibited and on the other hand, it is not obligatory. However, there are different opinions among the jurists regarding the fact that the first and commandment ruling (Ḥokme Awwali wa Taklifi), regardless of special conditions, is whether recommendation (Istiḥbāb), abominable (Makruh), or permissible (Mobāḥ). Although there have been many discussions and researches about polygamy; less attention has been paid to its commandment ruling (Ḥokme Taklifi) and discussions such as the philosophy of polygamy, the condition of justice, etc. have been examined more. Therefore, it is necessary to examine in detail the ruling on polygamy, which there is a great difference among jurists, and finally to answer the important question of what is the first and commandment ruling on polygamy. This article tries to answer this question by using library sources and descriptive-analytical method, and the result obtained is the recommendation of polygamy as the first ruling.

One of the methods of validating the issuance authenticity (Ḥojjiyate Ṣoduri) of hadiths is to examine the debilitations (Taẕ'ifaat) introduced into it, with the criterion of concentration (Irtikāz) and the method of the wise men (sireh 'oqalā). The comparative study of the debilitations mentioned in the traditions of the two schools (Fariqayn) paves the way for a better understanding of the hadith, jurisprudence and principles of Islamic schools and clearly shows the strengths and weaknesses of the foundations of ijtihad (Mabāni Ijtihādi). In this article, with a descriptive and analytical method, we point out the most important internal causes of debilitation, including the muniment (Sanadi) and textual causes of debilitating in Shia and Sunni traditions.Paying attention to the double standards in validation, the invalidity of the Rijāli debilitations and confirmations (Towthiqāt), the banning of writing hadith books, and the lack of distinction between Rijaali justice (the narrator's truthfulness) and jurisprudence justice ('idālate Feqhi) in the school of the Sunnis, show the strength of the principles and ijtihad of the shi'a over other Islamic schools on this matter. Also, contrary to the principles of shi'a, the rule of justice of the companions has closed the way for any kind of rational examination of the hadiths of Sunnis.155 Intellectual and religious biases (Ta'aṣṣobāt) have strongly influenced their Rijaali judgments, and even though, in the opinion of some religious scholars, any kind of science of principles non-rule-based issues as well as the rules that are used to understand religious propositions by intermediations or are not used in the way of understanding religion.

In Islamic jurisprudence, the principle of incumbency (Lozum) of all contracts is accepted and the parties should fulfill their commitments (ta'ahhodāt). In cases where one of the parties of the contract does not fulfill its obligations, there is a breach and the breaching party must compensate the financial damage by returning the situation to the previous state. so; Examining compensation methods is of special importance.
In this research, using library studies and analytical-comparative methods, it has been tried to investigate the difference of opinions of Shi'a and Hanafi jurists in the methods of compensation for financial loss in terms of the object and the profits. In Shi'a jurisprudence, the person causing the loss is absolutely responsible for the financial loss, both in terms of the object and profits, and the margin of defects (ArshE 'oyub) and in the event of lesion (Ghabn) he is unconditionally responsible; However, Hanafi jurisprudence did not accept the guarantee of loss of benefits (ẕarare Manāfe') and the right to accept the deal and receive the margin (Arsh), and it has only and limitingly considered the option of lesion (Khiyare Ghabn) in the case of dissemble (Tadlis) as a right for the loser (Motaẕarrer) to cancel (Faskh) and terminate the transaction.
The writers, by examining the opinions of jurists, according to the fundamental difference between the two views on the guarantee of benefits and the proof of margin, the condition dissemble (Tadlis) is one of the important reasons for the issuance discrediting of narrations (Bi E'tebāriye Ṣoduriye Rewāyāt), the majority of the narrations in the narrative books of Sunnis unlike the Shia traditions, are not free of dissembler (Modalles) narrators. The abundance of intermediates, abandoning (Irsāl) and anxiety (Iẕṭirāb) in the muniment (Sanad) and the text of the narration is one of the common causes of the issuance debilitations between the shi'a and other Islamic schools of thought.

One of the changer titles of rulings ('anāwine Mobaddele Aḥkām) in shi'a jurisprudence is "merging". Merging means public destruction (Nābudi 'orfi) of the subject and belongings of rulings. One of the jurisprudential effects of merging is to remove hardship from the life of obliged (Mokallafin) through using this rule in the current urbicultures. Like the use of stupefier drugs in the pharmaceutical industry. Regarding merging and its regularity in Shia jurisprudence texts, no independent discussion has been found and therefore the writers have tried to prove the rule of merging like other widely used jurisprudence rules in an argumentative and convincing manner while examining examples of merging in shi'a jurisprudence and its documentation.Therefore, this article seeks to solve this problem, what are the evidences and foundations of the merging rule with a comparative look at its jurisprudential examples? This article, with a descriptive-analytical method and using library sources has come to the conclusion that the investigations carried out on the documentation of this rule show that there are two types of reasons for this rule: the first reason is the rule "the names are the pivot of the rules" (Al-Ahkam Taduro Madaar Al-Asma) And the second reason is the narrations that prove this rule in a comparative way. According to the writers, both of the reasons are sound.159 Of course, the merging rule is applied to the rulings in which the subject is the title of the object not the object itself; Because the subject is not the same in all rulings, and those rulings that are burdened on the subject itself not it's title, its Shar'I ruling does not change in contract (Sharṭe Ẕemne 'aqd) and compensation for lesion, have come to say that there is not a single system for financial compensation; However, considering that in recent years in the laws of Afghanistan, Imami jurisprudence has been used as the basis of legislation alongside Hanafi jurisprudence, in this article, the degree of conformity and differences between the laws of this country and the Shia jurisprudence has been expressed through a comparative study of the laws of the country.

The jurisprudence of Ahl al-Bayt (a.s) with its thousand-year-old tradition now has a precise order based on the unconscious context of high and instrumental scientific traditions, the study of the methods of its jurists can lead to the reproduction of an effective method that will speed up the development of jurisprudence, in line with the contemporary needs while observing the patterns of jurisprudence. Therefore, it is an effort to answer the question, what are the essential requirements in research in methodology?
This article through library studies and conceptualization of "methodology" has tried to discover, draw and strengthen the model of a jurisprudential methodology study in the two fields of theoretical reason and practical reason. The result of the research shows that a jurisprudential system is composed of elements: theological foundations, purpose, reasons and basic theorems (Qaẕāyāye Pāye), the way of employing reason and paying attention to the situation of the era and geography of the jurist, which can be studied in three fields in jurisprudence: literature, principle and rigaal. The concepts of jurisprudence school are concepts that have a continuous interaction with the jurisprudence method and the scientific focus on them will depend on the model of scientific methodology.

In Islam, permanent marriage with more than one woman (up to four women) is not prohibited and on the other hand, it is not obligatory. However, there are different opinions among the jurists regarding the fact that the first and commandment ruling (Ḥokme Awwali wa Taklifi), regardless of special conditions, is whether recommendation (Istiḥbāb), abominable (Makruh), or permissible (Mobāḥ). Although there have been many discussions and researches about polygamy; less attention has been paid to its commandment ruling (Ḥokme Taklifi) and discussions such as the philosophy of polygamy, the condition of justice, etc. have been examined more. Therefore, it is necessary to examine in detail the ruling on polygamy, which there is a great difference among jurists, and finally to answer the important question of what is the first and commandment ruling on polygamy. This article tries to answer this question by using library sources and descriptive-analytical method, and the result obtained is the recommendation of polygamy as the first ruling.