چکیده:
The authority of Khabar al-Wahid (composed of two terms, 'authority' and 'Khabar al-Wahid'), is one of the extensive discussions in jurisprudential, legalistic, and interpretive books. The origin of the term 'authority' (Hujjiyat) often traces back to jurisprudence; however, this term has also found its way into the literature of the science of Quranic interpretation. For example, the issue of authority in interpretation has been specifically raised in cases such as the authority of Khabar al-Wahid, as well as the authority of the sayings of the Companions and the Tabi'un. Now, a serious question arises: how is the concept and function of the term 'authority' in non-jurisprudential contexts? It seems that not only can a distinction be made between the function of authority in the realm of understanding and the realm of action, but one can even argue for the impossibility of applying authority in the realm of understanding and knowledge. Regarding the term 'Khabar al-Wahid', one can also speak of the possibility of differing perspectives on it in non-jurisprudential spaces. This non-jurisprudential perspective can be pursued through an analysis of the relationship between the text and the audience (both at the time of text production and at the time of its interpretation). In any case, clearing the mind of a jurisprudential view and distinguishing between jurisprudence and non-jurisprudential fields—whether interpretation, history, etc.—is not to diminish jurisprudence, but rather due to the depth of the jurisprudential apparatus throughout history and its unintended influence on other Islamic sciences.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Generally, the fundamental issue of this article is to what extent the terms "authority" and "Khabar al-Wahid" can be used in non-jurisprudential domains, including interpretation and theology, and on the other hand, what reflections this application will encounter?
Sheikh Tusi writes: It is not permissible for someone to imitate one of the previous commentators; rather, it is worthy that one follows the correct rational and legal evidences, such as consensus (ijma) or successive transmission (naql al-mutawatir) from those whose speech is authoritative, namely the Infallibles: and in this regard, Khabar al-Wahid is not acceptable, especially if in a place where the only way is certain knowledge, and if in a place where interpreting the speech requires a linguistic witness, this linguistic witness is not sufficient unless it is based on a language and meaning that has been prevalent among linguists (Tusi, n.
" The dominant approach of Hadith scholars throughout history has been an emphasis on jurisprudential narrations, to the extent that even today we are practically the heirs of jurisprudential methods in analyzing interpretive and historical narrations; whereas one cannot pursue the analysis of interpretive narrations using concepts such as authority (hujiyat) or Khabar al-Wahid; for example, in the criticism and authentication (jarh wa ta'dil) of conflicting narrations regarding the news prohibiting codification, one cannot resort to "tasaqut" (dropping/falling away); because tasaqut pertains to determining the action of the obligated person (mukallaf), and in the context of this discussion, we must seek a clear semantic justification assuming the authenticity of the chain of transmission.
(
, 
, 
)
