چکیده:
According to the rule of reason and some verses and traditions, the rule of the jurist is necessary during the time of absence. In this research, these questions have been answered, which clear intellectual reason, which clear verse, and which authentic narration indicate the necessity of the rule of the jurist in the time of absence? The present research is trying to use the rational reason of God Almighty's ownership of the earth and having the right to manage it, to discuss about handing it over to the innocent and the obstacle created during the absence and the necessity of the jurist's rule, and from the verse forbidding the domination of tyrants and the verses of non-judgment. God's will and how to use the necessity of the jurist's rule during the absence of these two types of verses, and in the narrative section, how to answer the forms of documents and brokers accepted by Umar bin Hanzala and Ishaq bin Yaqoob in proving the jurisprudence? Therefore, based on the evidence presented in the assumption that the conditions are met, we will say that the rule of a comprehensive jurist is necessary at the time of absenteeism. In this research, the collection of data is a library and in a descriptive-analytical method, while mentioning the opinions of some scientists, in some cases, after the criticism, new evidences have been stated.
خلاصه ماشینی:
That Muhammad ibn Muslim narrated such an event means he considered Umar ibn Hanzala to be a person of greatness and respect within the community, because those responsible for conveying legal rulings from the Infallible (as) at that time were the jurists and trusted figures of the community (Sanad, 1429 AH: 201-202).
Yes, if it were "لم یکذب علینا", there would be a possibility that he did not lie against us specifically regarding this statement, but the phrase is not like that; therefore, Umar ibn Hanzala is trustworthy and this narration is also reliable (Shubayri Zanjani, 1419 AH: Vol. 11, 3756).
Third Reason: The obligation to refer to scholars regarding the rulings of new issues is one of the self-evident matters (badihiyāt), and the general public also knew this, let alone Ishaq ibn Yaqub; however, in social matters and governmental events, it is plausible that understanding them might be difficult for him; therefore, he asks to know whether the Imam has appointed a person or persons for such matters or not?
If they had not been commanded to refer to scholars and narrators in such matters, since they are the ones who derive rulings from rules and principles, this issue would not have been clear to anyone; therefore, guardianship in the second sense is not established for the jurist except in some cases (Khoei, 1388 SH: vol.
(
, 
, 
)
