الشهرة العملية عند الأصوليين

Abstract EN

Studies that are based on proofs and legal justifications are considered to be the most important studies in the doctrine of jurisprudence, under which there are many other studies, such as the justification of one item of news, the justification of emergence, the justification of reputation, the justification of measurement, and the justification of approbation.

The reputation study is one of the studies that is also based on proofs and legal justifications.

There are three types of such type of reputation.

The first is Narrative Reputation, which is about the reputation of a narration among narrators and hadith specialists because it is highly circulated and repeatedly mentioned in the narrative books.

The second is Fatwai Reputation, which is merely about the reputation of fatwa (advisory opinion) without relying on a narration, i.e., whether or not there is a clearly written narration.

The third is the Scientific Reputation, which is the reputation of the narration that is progressively regarded as fatwa.

This reputation is a study of a justification of one item of news.

The study is about whether or not such item of news is adopted by the famous jurists who lived in the era of the Prophet Mohammed or one of twelfth infallible Imams.

So, is it necessary to strengthen the proof of this news and regarded it as a justification, especially if the proof is weak? And is it necessary to weaken the proof, when it is correct and not adopted by the famous jurists? The subject matter of the study is the Scientific Reputation and the correct view is that the famous jurists’ use of a narration - that is of a weak proof - should not strengthen this proof.

In contrast, the jurists’ disuse of a narration of a correct proof should not be taken into consideration.