مختصر البحثAbstract :
Most of the attention of the religious modernizers, who still believe on the religion importance in Man's life, is paid towards attempting to put the theory of (historical) as a rule so as to find an approach to legalize the contemporary problems religiously. Throughout the research, we found that there are four opinions upon the (historical) of the religious knowledge (the holy Qur'an and Sunnah): The first opinion:- the origin of the religious knowledge is the historical, unless the evidence proves the opposite, this is the opinion of the modernizers; secularists and religious, Muslim and non Muslim, Sunnite and Shiite, with the difference of their extremity in this opinion. Some deny completely that the Islamic knowledge is a Divine knowledge, some believe that they are Divine knowledge but they are put for certain era so their validity is expired with the end of that era and the human mind is responsible for taking the good of its judgments, some believe that they are mixed of Divine knowledge and human knowledge, and some believe that they are Divine knowledge on the theoretical levels, become human knowledge on the application level, change according to the historical variables. The seconds opinion: It is the opposite of the first opinion, rejecting the historical of the Islamic knowledge completely, the founders of this opinion, who are mostly jurists; they believe that the origin of the legal judgments is the fixedness, unless the evidence proves the opposite. The third opinion:- believe that the origin of the legal judgments is the fixedness, and the subjects are discussed; the jurist must define the subject then give it the judgment, the worshipping subject could not be historical, while the social subject could be historical. The forth opinion: believe that the origin of the legal judgments is neither historical nor non historical; the researcher and the evidence should prove either that the historical conditions affect the judgment subject or not. If there is no evidence, so the origion would be neither this nor that. The research concludes a set of results that could be summarized as following:
1-The modernizing thought is not a new creation or a new idea in the world of thought; it is a repetition of the human thought in all ages. Some of the questions that are aroused today are the same as that had been aroused in the age of the prophet Mohammed (P.U.H) when the disbelievers of Quraish accused him as a (poet), as the poet has a wide imagination that enable him to create idea that goes beyond the imagination of the ordinary people, so they had said he had created or fabricated the holy Qur'an as it had been mentioned in the holy Qur'an which refuted them and challenged them to present something like the holy Qur'an. These questions are also like the previous theorizations and defamations where some had fabricated narrations and the other had interpreted them that the prophet could not manage the worldly problems by himself so he had counseled his fellows and get use of the others' experiences. So we can say that the human thought repeated itself with the difference of terms and manner. 2- Thought could not be countered save by thought so the modernizers' hypotheses must be faced by a counter thought that would not result in increasing the extremity of certain party. Some of the modernizers are looking seriously for the truth, believing that religion must have a role in the people daily life. The holy Qur'an and the prophetic tradition, as well as the biography of the infallibles, are immortal example of facing the odd or unusual ideas with kindness. Hence each one, of the modernizers or others, who demand looking for truth should follow these three resources to reveal truth. Yet there are some modernizers who had nothing to do with religion, they deal with it to get it out of its real significance and content.
3- Believing that the prophet is a human does not affect his infallibility, this aspect could not be a subject of judgment though some jurist consider it in the field of recommended and unrecompensed as the time of his sleeping, the kind of his food and so on; these are so personal things that could not be followed unless he had recommended to do or not to do it.
4- History, as a concept, is not rear for the jurists' theorizations, though it had not been invested within the rules of deduction. So it is possible to put this theory in the curricula of the Hawza study if the Usuli scholars define the limits of this theory within the frame of the religious legislation and root it as a base or a principle within the rules of the science of principles. This needs a courage like that of Ibn Idrees who had discussed the opinions of Sheikh Al-Toosy, that of Al-Khoo'y who had discussed the jurist opinion in consensus and famous or that of Al-Khoomayny who had entered the effect of time and place on changing subject.
ينصب جل اهتمام الحداثويين المتدينين -الذين لا يزالون يؤمنون بأهمية الدين في حياة الإنسان- في محاولة التقعيد لنظرية (التاريخية) على أمل أن يجدو فيها مخرجًا لشرعنة المشاكل المعاصرة شرعنة دينية. وبعد مسيرة البحث السابقة، تبين أنّ هناك أربعة آراء في القول بتاريخية المعارف الدينية (القرآن والسنّة):
الرأي الأول: إنّ الأصل في المعارف الدينية –عمومًا- هو التاريخية، إلّا ما دلّ الدليل على عكس ذلك، وهو ما يذهب إليه الحداثويون –علمانيون ومتديّنون، مسلمون وغير مسلمين، سنّة وشيعة- ولكن مع الفارق في درجة تطرفهم إلى هذا الرأي، فمنهم مَن يُنكر تمامًا أن تكون المعارف الإسلامية معارف إلهية، ومنهم مَن يؤمن بألوهيتها غير أنها كانت مشرّعة لمرحلة تاريخية معينة، انتهت بانتهاء تلك المرحلة وتُرِك أمرها للعقل البشري، هو الذي يجتهد في ما ينفعه من أحكامها، ومنهم مَن يراها معارف مختلطة -إلهية وبشرية- فيها الذاتي وفيها العرضي، فما كان ذاتيًّا باقيًا وثابتًا بمرور الزمن، وما كان عرضيًّا يتغير بتغير الأحداث التاريخية، ومنهم مَن يراها معارف إلهية على المستوى النظري، لكنّها تصبح معارف بشرية على مستوى التطبيق، تتغير وفق المتغيِّرات التاريخية.
الرأي الثاني: هو معاكس تمامًا للرأي الأول، حيث يرفض التاريخية في المعارف الإسلامية مطلقًا، ويذهب أصحابه –وهم أغلب الفقهاء- إلى أنّ الأصل في الأحكام الشرعية هو الثبات، إلّا ما دلّ الدليل على عكس ذلك.
الرأي الثالث: يذهب إلى أنّ الأصل في الأحكام هو الثبات، وهذا أمرٌ لا نقاش فيه، إلّا أنّ النقاش يكون في الموضوعات، حيث يقع على عاتق الفقيه أولًا تعيين الموضوع في الخارج، ومن ثم اعطاء الحكم له. فما كان موضوعه عباديًّا.. فهو غير خاضع للتاريخية، وما كان موضوعه اجتماعيًّا.. فهو خاضع للتاريخية.
الرأي الرابع: هو التوقّف، فلا الأصل في الأحكام هو التاريخية، ولا الأصل فيها هو اللّاتاريخية، وإنما الباحث والدليل، إما أن ينتهي به إلى إثبات تأثير الظروف التاريخية في موضوع الحكم، وإما أن ينتهي إلى إثبات عدم تأثيره فيه، وإذا لم يكن هناك دليل يثبت هذا أو ذاك، فالأصل لا هذا ولا ذاك.
