چکیده:
Congregation prayer is a ritual bringing humans closer to God. However, it also has a social aspect, breeding empowerment and unity among Muslims. One pillar of congregational prayer is an Imam who leads the prayers. The Holy Legislator has specified some conditions for the Imam. One such requirement agreed upon by most latter Islamic Jurisprudents is the condition of justice. The findings indicate that the renowned majority of the latter Islamic jurisprudents regard the requirement of justice for the congregation Imam as immutable. However, their arguments fail to establish this claim. Due to the alleged consensus, the Islamic jurisprudents have paid scant attention to this subject. Instead, they merely cite the purported consensus and mention the relevant narratives from the Islamic tradition. Nevertheless, a comprehensive critique of the relevant arguments and proving this hypothesis would at least alleviate some religious people’s obsession with meeting these conditions, helping congregation prayer further flourish.
خلاصه ماشینی:
It seems that the most important reason that jurists have stated for the validity of justice is consensus; therefore, most jurists, while considering this consensus as established, have tried to support their claim by referring their words to verses and narrations, although relying on these arguments is debatable.
Most jurists, because they considered the “condition of justice” for the Imam of congregational prayer as a matter of course, have sufficed to mention narrations and claim consensus in their argumentative books or in their advanced courses, and have not examined the evidence in detail.
For this reason, Allama Majlisi in Bihar al-Anwar, after mentioning narrations – some of which imply the conditionality of justice – says that despite the abundance of hadiths about the virtue of congregational prayer reaching the level of consistency, believing in the validity of justice is problematic, and being meticulous about the justice of the Imam is one of the whispers of Satan, and perhaps these narrations can be interpreted as recommending following a just person.
The author of Hada'iq objects to this argument and says that the utmost that this This argument proves at most the impermissibility of an immoral person leading the prayer, and this evidence is narrower than the claim, because the claim is the validity of “justice,” not the validity of “not being immoral,” which means that this is a more specific concept than the justice required for an Imam (Bahrani, 245/10).
(
, 
, 
)
