چکیده:
The theory of the right to obey is one of the innovative theories of the thinker Martyr Sadr (may Allah have mercy on him), which was designed and presented against the famous Usuli theory based on the ugliness of the eagle of the eagle of the eagle. The rule of the ugliness of the eagle of the eagle of the eagle is based on the central point that the duty does not require incitement and the creation of the Ba'ath until it is definitely or scientifically communicated to the one who is obligated, and the eagle on inaction where there is no need for incitement will be ugly according to the rule of reason. By raising the issue that the scope of fulfillment depends on the maulavit and the right to obey, Martyr Sadr (may Allah have mercy on him) believes that maulavit is a dubious fact and that no matter how strong the maulavit of the master is, the circle of fulfillment also expands. The famous error of the Usuli is that in maulavit, they have equated the conventional master with the true master and just as in conventional masters the possible fulfillment of the duty is not possible, in true masters they have also raised the possibility of the non-fulfillment of the possible fulfillment of the duties. The essence and essence of the opinion of Martyr Sadr (may God have mercy on him) is the existence of the requirement of initiation and incitement in the revealed duties, possibly in the true master. This theory has been criticized by some as internal inconsistency. The critic claims that in the possibility of the master's obligatory duty, there is also the possibility of release and permission, and the right to obey the master, just as it requires the observance of maulavit in obligatory rulings, it also requires the observance of maulavit in dispensational rulings, and in the event of conflict between the aspects of obligation and release, there is no aspect that gives preference to one side over the other. Therefore, the theory of Martyr Sadr (may God have mercy on him) is plagued by internal inconsistency. This article has attempted to clarify the absence of these problems in the theory. The claim of Martyr Sadr (may God have mercy on him) is that there is a necessity for incitement in the possible duties of the true master, and the critic considers the theory incomplete because the right to obedience in the area of obligatory duties is hindered and interfered with by the duties of release, rather than criticizing the principle of the claim, which is the necessity for the resurrection. This is the main error of the criticism; although it also faces problems in other areas, which have also been addressed.
خلاصه ماشینی:
An Analysis of the Coherence of the Theory of Haqq al-Ta'ah Hossein Ali Saadi * Date of Receipt: 2024/04/18 Date of Acceptance: 2024/08/10 Article Type: Research Abstract The theory of Haqq al-Ta'ah is among the creative theories of the thinker Shahid Sadr (may Allah have mercy on him), which has been designed and presented in opposition to the famous theory of the Usulists based on the prohibition of punishment without clarification (qubh 'iqab bila bayan).
2. The Theory of Haqq al-Ta'ah Shahid Sadr (may Allah have mercy on him), while criticizing the various approaches to the rule of the reprehensibility of punishment without clarification, believes that the jurists (usuliyyun) have separated the discussion of the Master's mastership from the issue of authority (hujjiyyah).
Let us assume we analyze Shahid Sadr's (may Allah have mercy on him) Haqq al-Ta'ah theory within the domain of non-implicative permissibility, which happens to be the case for most real permissions; is the critic's objection valid or not?
This is the fundamental error of the critique, and the evidence of this error is the fact that Shahid Sadr's (may Allah have mercy on him) theory, at the very least in the section of non-implicative permissibility, does not face inconsistency in the critic's terminology.
The critic demonstrates this claim elsewhere using the words of Shahid al-Sadr (may Allah have mercy on him), who believes that the criterion of permissibility can conflict with the criterion of obligation and may even take precedence over it in some cases.
(
, 
, 
)
