امکان‎سنجی مشروعیت قضاوت تحکیمی در حکومت اسلامی در زمان غیبت

قاضی تحکیم در کنار قاضی منتصب در شرع اسلام، جهت حل اختلاف طرفین منازعه پیش‌بینی شده‌ است. بررسی مشروعیت بهره‌مندی از این نهاد راه‎گشا برای دستگاه قضا، مساله اصلی این مقاله است. پیرامون مشروعیت اصل این نهاد، مناقشات اندکی میان فقها صورت گرفته، اما نهایتاً مشروعیت آن از جانب مشهور در زمان معصومین: پذیرفته شده‌ است. درخصوص امکان قضاوت تحکیمی در زمان غیبت معصومین:، مشهور بر اساس برخی روایات معتقدند اگر قاضی مجتهد باشد، حکمش همواره نافذ است(چه در موضع قاضی منتصب و چه در موضع تحکیم) و اگر مجتهد نباشد، حکم او، حتی با تراضی طرفین بر حکمیتش نافذ نیست و نتیجه گرفته‌اند که قاضی تحکیم تنها در زمان حضور معصوم برای کسی قابل تصور است که با وجود شرایط قضاوت، امام او را برای قضاوت منصوب ننموده باشد. در این نوشتار، ضمن بررسی ادله مشروعیت قضاوت تحکیمی، با توجه به عمومیت روایاتی که در خصوص قاضی تحکیم وجود دارد و عدم تفکیک میان زمان حضور یا غیبت معصوم در آن‎ها و با توجه به سیره عقلا، نظر مشهور نقد گردیده و با توجه به روایت ابی‌خدیجه، دارابودن اجتهاد، تخصصاً از شرایط قاضی تحکیم خارج دانسته شده و مشروعیت این نهاد، جهت رفع تنازع در حکومت اسلامی زمان غیبت به اثبات رسیده ‌است.

The Study of the Possibility of Personal Judgement by Arbitration in the Islamic Government in the Period of Occultation

To settle arguments or conflicts of the parties, two judges may be involved, a judge who is appointed in the Islamic Law, and a judge who makes judgements on the basis of arbitration institution. The study of the legitimacy of this highly helpful institution to the judiciary constitutes the basic question of this article. There have been little disputes over the legitimacy of this institution among the Muslim jurisconsults, and finally its legitimacy has been generally accepted at the time of the Infallible Imams (peace be upon them). Regarding the possibility of personal judgement on the basis of arbitration institution when the Infallible Imams are not present, the well-known religious scholars, basing their arguments on certain traditions (transmitted reports), believe that if the judge is a mujtahid (a jurisprudent who can infer Islamic rulings from resources and is an authority on Divine Law), his decision is legally binding (operative) whether he is an appointed judge or he is a judge by arbitration; and if the he is not a mujtahid, his decision, even if there is a mutual agreement between parties on his decision, is not legally binding or operative. They have made the conclusion that the judge by arbitration can be attributed to someone who, despite of being qualified to occupy the office of a judge, is not appointed as a judge by the Infallibles (peace be upon them) when they are present. This article tries to cast light on the arguments for the legitimacy of judgement on the basis of arbitration institution. However, due to the fact that the traditions concerning the judge by arbitration are said to have general application, that no attention is paid to the distinction between presence and nonpresence of the Infallibles (peace be upon them) as an important factor as regards traditions, and that the assumption of the wise is to be taken into consideration, the commonly accepted view regarding the issue in question has been scrutinized. To sum up, taking into consideration the traditions quoted by Abikhadijah, the ability to make judgements (being a mujtahid) is considered not to be the necessary and special qualification of a judge by arbitration. In addition, in the Islamic government, when the Infallibles (peace be upon them) are not present, the legitimacy of this institution as the one which can settle the disputes has been established.