تاملی در ادلّه روایی اعتبار اسناد رسمی و عادی

بی‌گمان اعتبار «سند» در اثبات معاملات و غیر آن در محاکم، از چالشی‌ترین مباحث جامعه حقوقی معاصر است. این پژوهش بر آن است تا اعتبار «سند» را - اعم از سند رسمی و سند عادی - در چارچوب دانش فقه اسلامی، با مراجعه به منابع کتابخانه‌ای و با روش تحلیلی اجتهادی، تنها از منظر روایات بررسی نماید؛ چرا که روایات در عرصه اثبات اعتبار و یا عدم اعتبار اسناد، همواره مورد استشهاد فقیهان بوده است. در این جستار، برای اعتبار سند، به دو صحیحه عبدالله‌بن‌سنان و عمربن‌یزید تمسک شد که هیچ‌یک تمام نبود، و برای عدم اعتبار سند، به شش روایت تمسک شد که از این میان، دلالت صحیحه حسین‌بن‌یزید، موثقه دوم سکونی و اطلاق مقامی ادلّه اثبات تام بود و اعتبار سند به‌وسیله آن‌ها نفی می‌شد. شایان ذکر است، نوآوری نویسنده در مقاله حاضر، توجه ویژه به روایات برای اثبات حجیت و عدم حجیت سند بود. وانگهی، حاصل بحث اجمالاً از این قرار است که سند ظن‌آور حجت نیست، و چه‌بسا دلیل بر عدم اعتبار آن نیز موجود است.

a reflection on hadith evidences regarding the validity of official and ordinary documents in islamic law

introduction ‌the paper addresses the tension between traditional islamic jurisprudence and contemporary legal practices concerning the use of documents as evidence. traditionally, islamic law has relied on methods such as the judge’s knowledge, evidence [bayyinah], confession, oath, and casting lots to prove claims. however, with the increasing reliance on official documents in modern legal systems, including those in islamic countries, a new approach has emerged that often places documents above other forms of evidence. this article seeks to explore the validity of documents, both ordinary and official, within the context of islamic law, particularly through the lens of hadith evidence.‌ ∴ research question ∴ ‌the central research question explored in this article is: to what extent can documents, both official and ordinary, be considered valid evidence in islamic law, particularly in cases of conflict with traditional forms of proof such as bayyinah and confession? this question is vital for bridging the gap between contemporary legal practices and traditional islamic jurisprudence.‌ research hypothesis ‌the hypothesis proposed in the article is that presumptive documents do not constitute independent and authoritative evidence when compared to traditional methods such as knowledge, bayyinah, and confession, according to hadith evidence. this hypothesis is founded on the islamic principle derived from the quran, specifically surah yunus, verses 36 and 59, which highlight the non-validity of presumption and conjecture in judicial matters. therefore, unless explicit hadith evidence supports the validity of documents, their authority remains questionable.‌ methodology & framework, if applicable ‌the methodology involves islamic ijtihad (jurisprudential reasoning) through an extensive review of library resources, including classical and contemporary works of islamic jurists and legal scholars. the framework of the study systematically addresses several key aspects:     conceptual analysis of documentation:     definition and significance of documents in modern legal systems.     traditional islamic views on written statements and their evidentiary value.     examination of quranic and hadith evidences:     analysis of quranic verses pertinent to documentation and presumption.     scrutiny of hadiths that may support or refute the validity of documents as evidence.     comparison of contemporary legal practices and islamic jurisprudence:     exploration of the contemporary legal framework’s reliance on documentation versus traditional islamic evidentiary methods.     evaluation of jurisprudential opinions:     review of various juristic opinions, highlighting the majority view against the independent validity of documents.     examination of minority opinions supporting the use of documentation based on principles like maintaining order and eliminating hardship.