| المستخلص: |
ليس الشيعة على منهج واحد في تحديد مصادر استنباطهم الفقهي، وفي بيان موقفهم من الاجتهاد، فهناك الإخباريون الذين يباينون الأصوليين في الموقف من هاتين القضيتين، كما أن الكتب الأربعة عند الشيعة، والتي تضم مرويات أئمتهم ليست نظرة الإخباريين إليها على وفاق مع نظرة الأصوليين، من حيث اشتمالها على الضعيف، والصحيح، والمدسوس، بالإضافة إلى نقاشهم ومخالفتهم لجمهور الأمة الإسلامية في سلامة القرآن من التحريف والتبديل. والسنة عندهم ليست مقصورة على قول النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وفعله وتقريراته، وإنما يتسع نطاقها لتشمل أقوال أئمتهم وتقريراتهم وأفعالهم، الأمر الذي يعني استمرارية التشريع بعد وفاة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، وهو ما يتعارض مع اختصاص النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بالتشريع، وتبطله نصوص الشريعة الإسلامية القطعية. ولاحقا عرف الفقه الشيعي ما عرف عندهم ب(دليل العقل) ولم يكن معمولا به، ولا معروفا في عصر الأمة. وفي حين يرفض الإخباريون مبدأ الاجتهاد، مدعين أن ذلك انحراف بالمذهب إلى أصول أهل السنة ومنهجهم في استنباط الأحكام الشرعية، بعيدا عن قول أئمتهم المعصومين، حسب عقيدتهم فيهم يشدد الأصوليون على أن لا علاقة بين منهج الاجتهاد الذي يسلكونه، وبين منهج أهل السنة، متهمين أهل السنة بإهمال النص الشرعي وتجاوزه في منهجهم الاستدلالي عند الاجتهاد، وهذا ما يجافي الحقيقة بالطبع، ويتنافى مع ما انتهى إليه البحث من التزام أهل السنة دلالة النص القطعي في ثبوته ودلالته. ويشذ أيضا الفقه الشرعي في تعريف الإجماع، باشتراطه قول من ادعوا لهم العصمة والإمامة من عند الله، وجاء هذا الشذوذ في تعريف الإجماع حتى يتوافق مع ما ذهبوا إليه من شذوذ آخر، وما أحدثوه من زعم يتلخص في أن الأمة ليس لها حق اختيار إمامها، ومهما أجمعت على ذلك فليس لإجماعها هذا معنى شرعي، كما ليس لها الحق في اختيار نبي مرسل إليها، وتأسيسها على هذا الفقه خرج الفقه الشيعي في أطروحاته السياسية أن ليس للأمة ولاية على نفسها، وإنما عليها ولاية الفقيه.
Shiite Muslims are not uniform in their deductive and inductive approaches to thinking for their jurisprudence inasmuch as in their ijtihad (the endeavour of a Muslim scholar to derive a rule of divine law from the Koran and Hadith without relying on the views of other scholars). Of them are the reporters, or anecdoters, (the anecdotal evidence thinkers) who are much alien to the fundamentalists, especially in these two issues of deductive thinking and ijtihad with regard to jurisprudence. The four principal books of the Shia, which are mere anecdotes of their imams, are even asymmetrically and multifariously approached by anecdoters, yet not are they in consistence with the views of the fundamentalists. Some of their views are poorly evidenced; others are correctly narrated while many have been fabricated. Most of their discussions and opinions with regard to the authenticity of the Holy Qur'an are aberrations from the norm and therefore are contrary to the sound knowledge of the Muslim Umma. The Shiite concept of Sunna is not restricted (as it is to Sunnite Muslims) to the sayings, actions and traditions of Prophet Mohamed, Peace Be Upon Him; it extends to encompass the sayings, doings and traditions of their Imams, thus implying that the production of Sharia (inventing new jurisprudences) continue for them even after the death of Prophet Mohamed, Peace Be Upon Him. This is contrary to the nature Mohamed's prophethood and his message as the principal Jurisprudent of the Muslim Umma. The very notion is null and void according to clear Shariaa texts. By time, Shiite jurisprudence had introduced what is known in their literature as the Proof of the Mind - a neoterism not even known to the earlier imams of the Muslim Umma during the well-guided caliphates. yet, while anecdoters reject ijtihad thinking that it is an aberration from the sound principles of their doctrine, as being akin to the fundamentalists of Sunnite ulema and their deductive and inductive approaches to Sharia judgements. They believe that such aberrations are not commensurate with the views of their unfaulty imams, according to their faith. The most bigoted of them think that the ijtihad approach has nothing to do with their beliefs and faiths inasmuch as their faith has nothing to do with the doctrines of Sunnite Muslims. Thereafter, they started accusing Sunnite scholars of ignoring the power of the text in jurisprudence; they also mistakenly believe that they have surpassed the text, or sometimes, they claim, that Sunnite scholars have bastardised the text to the advantage of ijtihad, which is absolutely wrong as this paper proves. The present author has collected certain evidence that Sunnite scholars have never trespassed the authenticity of major Islamic texts. Shiite jurisprudence is irregularly inconsistent even in the definition of ijma'a (consensus of opinion of Islamic Ulema) when they set forth as a prerequisite condition that their non-erring imams should and must concur with any view even if consensually opined. This irregularity of thinking is clear in their definition of ijma'a so its meaning may accommodate to their aberrant bideology, believing that their imamate is a divine gift for a bunch of errorless imams, the twelvers. Their claims that the Umma of Islam and their Ulema have no choice in the selection of their imams does not make sense to their jurisprudence. According to their ideology, too, the Muslim Umma have no right whatsoever to choose their prophets and messengers insomuch as they do with regard to the imams. Accordingly, the Umma has no power to install their imams, but they have to obey one sole, ruling Jurisprudent.
|
