Rules on the influence of empirical sciences in inferring from verbal evidences (with a tendency towards understanding the wisdom of rulings) مقاله

خلاصه ماشینی:

The first decision faces two objections: first, that accepting the principle of issuance confronts the Legislator (al-Shari') with inducing ignorance upon His audience, because at that time, they applied the word to its apparent meaning, while the jurist is certain that such meaning was not intended by the Legislator; in the issue of gradualism in stating rulings and the issue of abrogation (naskh), similar problems exist which are resolved by a more important interest, but this problem here is not resolvable; second, that the context of impossibility only serves as a reason to reject the apparent meaning, whereas applying it to a new meaning requires a specific context. In examining the validity of this scenario regarding the effectiveness of scientific data, it must be said: the assumption of this scenario is that the people at the time of issuance understood something from the verbal evidence that people today—including the jurist—have a probabilistic belief in its impossibility as a matter of public consensus, and they understand a new meaning from that word.