چکیده:
An important point that must be considered in the study of conventional sciences is the recognition of the relationship between the logic of conventional sciences and discovery sciences; our claim is the distinction of the logic of these two fields, which we attempt to prove in this article. We aim to show that the logic of discovery matters (non-conventional) should not be considered identical to the logic of conventional matters in all cases, nor should its extension be decisively ruled. Neglect of this point can be observed in some instances of worship in jurisprudence and legal matters, including the validity of a suspensive contract and the way permission affects an unauthorized transaction (Fuduli transaction).
خلاصه ماشینی:
Similarly, discussions raised among philosophers and some legal thinkers under the title of the opposition between knowledge and value, or in other words, reality and law, or the method of interpretation in social sciences and the critique and evaluation of "scientific" and "philosophical" methods in recognizing the essence of subjects within the scope of the philosophy of sociology4, are themselves clear evidence demonstrating the efforts of social science thinkers regarding the recognition of the nature and inferential requirements of truth and validity.
Although the stability and durability of these rulings are contingent upon the degree of their conformity with the rational logic of real and actual matters, to which people generally adhere in their relations, this principle of stability does not negate that the Legislator may, for the purpose of facilitating relations in any given period, establish rulings based on His own specific logic, especially in individual acts of worship that possess hidden interests and human intellects are incapable of accessing their system; for this very reason, this section of conventional rulings does not fall under the umbrella of justice and permission1.
Now, we will discuss in detail the validity of a suspended contract and the manner in which permission affects a transaction by an unauthorized person (fuduli), which has a legal aspect, and we will reflect on how the reasoning of jurists becomes problematic in the result of the aforementioned fallacy.
From the side of Imami jurists, three views have been presented in this regard: The first theory is entirely within the context of the domain of conventional matters (i'tibarities), without considering the logic of real matters and independently of it, which is referred to as "true revelation" (kashf haqiqi).
(
, 
, 
)
