چکیده:
'Al-qada 'ala al-ghayib' is a title that almost all jurists have addressed in their books regarding judgment. In this regard, what is disputed is the validity of relying on certain proofs and the method of reasoning with them. All Shia jurists and Sunni jurists, except for Abu Hanifa, believe in the validity of in absentia judgments. This group relies on the general text of the Quran, the absolute nature of evidence (bayyina), the negation of harm, consensus (ijma), and some narrations. On the other hand, the arguments presented against the validity of in absentia judgments are the prevention of harm and a number of narrations. In this writing, the arguments of both parties have been examined according to those who hold them and their respective methods of reasoning.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Those who believe in the validity of judgments in absentia have relied, in their reasoning, on the generality of the text, the absolute nature of the proofs of the authority of evidence (bayyinah), the absence of harm, consensus (ijma), and in terms of citing certain narrations, such as the Sahih of Jamil, the narration of Muhammad ibn Muslim, the narration of Abu Musa al-Ash'ari, and the narration of Hind, the wife of Abu Sufyan.
Among these jurists, one can mention Muhaqqiq al-Hilli (Shara'i al-Islam 4: 77), Allamah al-Hilli (Irshad al-Adhhan 2: 147; al-Idah al-Fawa'id 4: 359), Shahid al-Awwal (al-Durus al-Shar'iyyah 2: 91; Ghayat al-Murad 4: 53), Shahid al-Thani (Masalik al-Afham 13: 467), Saymari (Ghayat al-Maram 4: 235), Muhaqqiq Sabzawari (Kifayat al-Ahkam 2: 697), Muhammad Hasan Najafi (Jawahir al-Kalam 40: 221), Fazil Hindi (Kashf al-Litham 10: 152), Abd al-Ali Sabzawari (Muhadhdhab al-Ahkam 27: 67), Sayyid Ali Tabataba'i (Riyadh al-Masa'il 15: 172), and Subhani (Nizam al-Qada wa al-Shahadah 1: 455).
" 2 The late Agha Zia al-Iraqi in Kitab al-Qada (258), Sayyid Muhammad Rida Golpayegani in Kitab al-Qada (1: 365), and Sayyid Abd al-Karim Musavi Ardabili in Fiqh al-Qada (2: 175-178) have all considered the absolute application of the proofs of the authority of evidence regarding the permissibility of judgment against the absent party.
2 Among the jurists who have relied on this narration, Sayyid Muhammad Kazim Tabataba'i can be mentioned, who in Takmilat al-Urwah al-Wuthqa considers the lawsuit and judgment against the absent person to be heard if evidence is present, and bases his view on this narration.
(
, 
, 
)
