اعتبارسنجی تبادر پسا تشریعی در خوانش گزاره‌های فقهی حقوقی؛ مدخلی بر اصلاح قوانین اسلامی

حکم و موضوعی که در سنت کتبی به مردمان امروز رسیده است، بر فهم ما از الفاظ استوار است. کژفهمی یا حقیقی‌پنداری معانی مجازی، بی‌تردید آسیب‌های هولناکی در امر استنباط به‌بار می‌آورد. این دغدغه‌، علمای علم اصول را بر آن داشته تا در راستای کشف معنای حقیقی‌ واژگان و احتراز از کژفهمی، نشانه‌هایی را پی‌جویند. «تبادر» نزد امامیه، مهم‌ترین بلکه یگانه سنجه‌ معنای حقیقی است. ارباب دانش را دور از نظر نیست که تبادر از اشکالات ثبوتی و اثباتی مصون نمانده است؛ لذا پژوهش‌گران در این جستار که با روش توصیفی تحلیلی و با هدف اعتبارسنجی تبادر پسا-تشریعی صورت پذیرفته است، ضمن شرح ایرادات وارد شده بر تبادر توسط علمای شرق و غرب و بررسی راه‌حل‌های ارائه شده، برخی اشکالات را از ساحت تبادر زدوده‌اند و لاجرم برخی را چنان ستبر انگاشته‌اند که اعتبار را از این سنجه می‌ستاند. ناکامی تبادر در بُعد اثباتی، تاثیر مستقیم بر قوانین مبتنی بر فقه دارد و می‌تواند موجبات اصلاح آن را فراهم آورد؛ زیرا قوانین اسلامی، علی‌الخصوص قوانین ماهوی که غالباً ابتناء بر نظرات فقیهان دارد، محصول استظهار قانون‌گذار از مستندات فقهی است و چنانچه معنای موضوع یا حکم در گزاره ‌فقهی با تبادر ظنی اثبات شده باشد که مطابق با نتیجه پژوهش تبادر ‌ظنی فاقد اعتبار است، حکم مستفاد از مستند ‌فقهی از حجیت ساقط است؛ این امر قانون‌گذار را به بازنگری در بسیاری از قوانین فرا می‌خواند.

post-legislative validation of spontaneous mental occurrence [tabador] in the interpretation of legal-jurisprudential propositions: an introduction to the reform of islamic codified laws

introduction the concept of spontaneous mental occurrence or tabador (springing to the mind first) plays a critical and intricate role within islamic jurisprudential theory and practice. the term, deeply rooted in the tradition of principles of islamic jurisprudence [usul al-fiqh], denotes an immediate and intuitive perception or understanding of concepts without the need for deliberative thought. this concept is pivotal for understanding how sharia rulings are derived and applied. in islamic jurisprudence, the relevance and applicability of a sharia ruling depend fundamentally on its subject matter; the ruling is only operative if its respective subject exists. thus, the spontaneous mental occurrence helps bridge the cognitive gap between the abstract rule and its practical subject, making the law’s application both possible and meaningful. in the context of legal reform, especially within the framework of islamic codified laws, understanding and validating the role of spontaneous mental occurrence becomes crucial. this is due to its potential to either solidify or undermine the legitimacy and effectiveness of legal interpretations and applications in contemporary contexts.  research question  the primary research question of this article is: how does spontaneous mental occurrence [tabador] influence the interpretation of legal-jurisprudential propositions in the post-legislative validation process of islamic codified laws? this question is examined through the lens of both traditional islamic jurisprudence and contemporary legal challenges, seeking to establish whether this concept can consistently provide a reliable basis for interpreting the words of the lawgiver as they were intended at the time of legislation, and how it translates into current legal applications.  research hypothesis  the hypothesis posited in this research is that spontaneous mental occurrence, while historically significant and deeply embedded in islamic jurisprudential practice, may face substantial challenges in its application to modern legal systems due to the dynamic nature of language and societal evolution. these challenges primarily involve the conjectural nature of interpreting historical texts with contemporary meanings, which may lead to discrepancies between original legislative intents and current understandings. the research aims to assess the validity of spontaneous mental occurrence in bridging these interpretative gaps, with a focus on whether it can be reliably used without succumbing to conjectural inaccuracies and historical disconnections.  methodology & framework, if applicable  this article employs a doctrinal and critical approach, utilizing a descriptive-analytical methodology to examine the concept of spontaneous mental occurrence in principles of islamic jurisprudence. the research framework is multidisciplinary, drawing from both eastern and western philosophical traditions, including the works of prominent philosophers and logicians such as ibn sina and martin heidegger, as well as islamic scholars of islamic jurisprudence. this broad perspective allows for a comprehensive analysis of the concept from various philosophical and legal angles.  the methodology involves a critical review of historical and contemporary texts on principles of islamic jurisprudence, analysis of case studies where spontaneous mental occurrence has been applied, and a comparative study with other legal systems where similar concepts might exist. additionally, the research incorporates discussions with contemporary islamic scholars and jurists to understand current perspectives and applications of spontaneous mental occurrence in legal interpretations. this blend of theoretical analysis and practical inquiry is designed to thoroughly examine the strengths and weaknesses of relying on spontaneous mental occurrence for legal interpretation in the modern era.