نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی پژوهشی
نویسنده
گروه حقوق، واحد مشهد، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، مشهد، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]
The condition of judicial ijtihad in Islamic jurisprudence has long been a topic of debate among jurists, and consequently, its existence in the current judicial system of Iran, which is based on Islamic standards, has been questioned, especially considering the rarity of ijtihad-qualified judges on one hand and the multitude of cases presented in the courts on the other. Judicial ijtihad, deemed essential by the prominent jurists, primarily relies on two narratives: 1. the reliable narration of Abu Khadija and 2. the acceptable narration of Omar ibn Hanthala. According to these scholars, the verdict issued by a non-ijtihad-qualified judge, despite being in accordance with the principles of truth and justice, would not be effective. Conversely, some other jurists have rejected the indication of these narratives regarding the necessity of a judge's ijtihad and have supported that the criterion for the validity and effectiveness of a verdict is its alignment with the principles of truth and justice, even if this verdict is issued by a following judge. The author affirms the opinion of the prominent jurists regarding the necessity of a judge's ijtihad, but upon re-examining the mentioned arguments, views this condition as related to the 'legislative' aspect of judicial rulings. Nowadays, with the establishment of a legislative body and the prohibition of judges from legislation, their duty is solely focused on the 'judicial' aspect And the correctness of fulfilling this duty will not require ijtihad.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)