چکیده:
Conflict of evidences is one of the important and practical topics in the science of Usul (Principles of Jurisprudence). When two conflicting evidences cannot be reconciled, the stage comes to presenting the preponderants (murajjihat) of the chapter of conflict. On the other hand, the importance of comparative jurisprudence and its role in bringing schools of thought closer is clear to everyone. In fact, the root of a large number of jurisprudential differences goes back to the foundational principles of jurists. The aim of this article is to familiarize readers with the approach of both parties toward resolving the conflict of evidences to assist researchers in the field of comparative jurisprudence. The fundamental question is: what are the similarities and differences between the Imamiye and the four schools of thought regarding the preponderants of the conflict of evidences? Using a descriptive and analytical method, this article attempts to explain their points of convergence and divergence comparatively by examining the views of Mirza Na'ini and Fakhr Razi on this subject. The results of the research showed that the relationship between the preponderants for both parties is 'general and specific by aspect' (umum wa khusus min wajh). Agreement with the book and the narrator's attributes are aspects of similarity, while opposition to the 'Ammah among the Imamiye, and agreement with Qiyas and Sadd al-Dhara'i among the Sunnis, are among the aspects of divergence.
خلاصه ماشینی:
The present discourse endeavors to, in a comparative manner and with emphasis on the views of Mirza Na'ini and Fakhr Razi, investigate the preponderants of the chapter of conflict in a detailed way and clarify the points of similarity and difference between these two prominent Usuli figures.
2-6- The Requirement of the Rule in the Chapter of Conflict A - From the Imami Perspective Regarding what the requirement of the primary rule is (meaning by the judgment of reason and rational evidence, regardless of specific evidences and narrations) concerning the equal (mut'adilaan) parties, there is a difference of opinion among the scholars of Usul; the famous late scholars, including the late Muzaffar, Akhund Khorasani, and Mirza Na'ini (Muzaffar, 1967, 2:225, 196), hold the view of dropping (tasaqut), while another group holds the view of choice (takhyir).
Some have counted five items as preponderants: the qualities of the narrator, practical fame, agreement with the Book and Sunnah, opposition to the 'amma, and preference due to being more recent (Subhani, 1424 AH, 4:520; Muzaffar, 1386 AH, 2:248).
-- Preference due to the qualities of the narrator Famous Imami jurists have considered some of the qualities of the narrator, which have been extracted from the maqbul hadith of Umar ibn Hanzala and the marfu' hadith of Zurara, such as: justice (adalah), jurisprudence (fiqh), trustworthiness (وثاقت), piety (wara') and taqwa, truthfulness, and the ability to accurately preserve (dabt), as among the issuance preponderants, whereby the possession of one or more of these qualities by the narrator of one of the conflicting reports results in the advantage and preference of his report (Khomeini, 1375 SH, p.
(
, 
, 
)
