اعتبارسنجی هم‌افزایی آراء فقهی در کشف و اختیار نظریه شریعت‌محور، مبتنی بر دیدگاه‌های شهید صدر؛ با تطبیق آن در فرایند کشف نظریه کیفری

‌ ∴ Introduction ∴ ‌
Civilizations, fundamentally, manage their social and individual dimensions through structured and systemic frameworks spanning various spheres such as education, economy, religion, judiciary, and family. Within Islamic civilization, it is posited that the comprehensiveness of Islamic Sharia inherently possesses the capacity to guide contemporary human life and civilization comprehensively. Therefore, the identification and implementation of Islamic systems and frameworks constitute a critical foundational step towards actualizing religious governance within Islamic societies.
     Prominent among Islamic thinkers addressing this area is Ayatollah Sayyid Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr (1935-1980), whose theoretical and practical contributions to jurisprudential theorization significantly shaped contemporary Islamic thought. Al-Sadr explicitly identifies the lack of coherent social systems as a critical issue plaguing modern humanity, positing Islamic systems as the solution to achieving social felicity. His significant jurisprudential innovation lies in distinguishing "fiqh al-ahkam" (jurisprudence of specific legal rulings) from "fiqh al-nazariyyat" (jurisprudence of broader theoretical frameworks). This distinction, relatively novel within Shi‘a jurisprudence, facilitates theoretical exploration and development across diverse societal domains.
     Al-Sadr’s theoretical framework visualizes an Islamic society structured upon foundational epistemological and ontological principles, informing specific social domains—economics, politics, culture, health—through overarching religious obligations and prohibitions. Beneath these guiding principles lie detailed jurisprudential rulings. Fiqh al-nazariyyat specifically addresses the intermediate tier, encompassing general policy directions and systemic principles necessary for managing society in accordance with Sharia.
     Integral to al-Sadr’s jurisprudential framework is the concept herein termed "Synergistic Authority of Islamic Jurists’ Opinions," a theory essential to transitioning from fiqh al-ahkam to fiqh al-nazariyyat. Under this paradigm, jurists can utilize methodologically sound rulings from fellow jurists to supplement their own interpretations, generating a comprehensive and cohesive body of jurisprudence. Despite its significance, this approach, though implicitly integrated within broader methodological discussions, has yet to receive an explicit designation or comprehensive exploration in al-Sadr's works.

‌ ∴ Research Question ∴ ‌
This research investigates a fundamental jurisprudential inquiry: What constitutes the evidentiary grounds for validating or rejecting the credibility of synergistically combining juristic opinions in the discovery and formulation of jurisprudential theories, particularly within the theoretical domain identified by Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr as fiqh al-nazariyyat? More specifically, the research explores whether the synergistic authority approach provides a robust jurisprudential methodology suitable for theorizing within Islamic criminal law, especially concerning the sensitive area of Hudud punishments.

‌ ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ ‌
The central hypothesis underpinning this study is that the synergistic authority of Islamic jurists' opinions, as methodologically elaborated by al-Sadr, enjoys general credibility and can serve as a foundational pillar for jurisprudential theorization across diverse societal sectors. By enabling jurists to systematically integrate and build upon each other's rulings, this methodology significantly enhances the scope and reliability of jurisprudential theorization. It is hypothesized that the synergistic authority approach is not merely supplementary but foundational, offering a necessary and legitimate method for deriving coherent and comprehensive Islamic legal theories.

‌ ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ ‌
This research employs a doctrinal and inductive methodological framework, deeply rooted in jurisprudential theory and Islamic legal scholarship. Initially, it delineates the conceptual scope and theoretical status of the synergistic authority theory within al-Sadr's broader intellectual structure. Following this doctrinal clarification, the study adopts an inductive analytical approach, examining relevant textual sources from al-Sadr's jurisprudential writings and related Islamic jurisprudential literature. Primary texts analyzed include al-Sadr’s foundational works and secondary scholarly interpretations of his jurisprudential methods.
     Furthermore, this study introduces an illustrative application of the synergistic methodology within criminal law theory, specifically addressing Islamic jurisprudential approaches to Hudud penalties. This practical framework provides a testbed for evaluating the method’s operational viability and highlights the theoretical intricacies involved in synergistically deriving jurisprudential theories.

‌ ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ ‌
This study carefully examined the concept of the "Synergistic Authority of Islamic Jurists’ Opinions," a methodological innovation attributed implicitly to Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr, evaluating its theoretical justification and practical implications within jurisprudential theory-building. Through rigorous analysis, five distinct arguments emerged as supportive of the validity and efficacy of employing synergized juristic opinions both in the discovery phase (identifying underlying jurisprudential principles) and the adoption phase (implementation within a social governance framework).
     Initially, the research addressed epistemological considerations, emphasizing that genuine attribution of any theoretical construct to Sharia fundamentally requires a robust epistemic threshold—certainty (Qat‘). The mere aggregation of juristic opinions without achieving this epistemic certainty, although methodologically useful, remains insufficient for definitive Sharia attribution. Therefore, the study underscored the necessity of integrating epistemological strategies such as "minor closure" (Insidad Saghir), a jurisprudential technique distinct from major closure (Insidad Kabir), which sanctions reliance on probabilistic reasoning (Zann) in limited jurisprudential domains. Minor closure effectively allows jurists to cautiously circumvent otherwise inaccessible epistemic pathways by endorsing highly reliable juristic opinions as valid supplementary proofs, thereby enhancing certainty through cumulative inductive reasoning.
     The research further analyzed the role of the jurist's guardianship authority (Wilayat al-Faqih) in reinforcing the legitimacy of synergistic juristic opinions, especially in their adoption within social systems. Although absolute guardianship remains a contentious theoretical stance among various Islamic scholars, this study identified sufficient jurisprudential backing—within the intellectual legacy of al-Sadr and subsequent scholarship—to affirm that the guardianship principle provides robust grounds for adopting synergistically derived jurisprudential theories into governance and policy frameworks. In scenarios where certainty remains elusive, the authoritative capacity vested in the jurist enables pragmatic yet principled adoption of synergized opinions to ensure coherent social system governance aligned with Islamic ethical and legal standards.
     Moreover, the research discussed the "probable agreement" (Ittifaq Muhtamal) argument, clarifying its specific utility in the context of theory adoption rather than initial theoretical discovery. This subtle distinction underscores the epistemological caution within al-Sadr’s framework, delineating clear boundaries between theoretical exploration (discovery) and practical jurisprudential application (adoption). The probable agreement, while persuasive, cannot independently sustain theoretical discovery absent stronger epistemic corroboration.
     The study rigorously addressed significant critiques of the synergistic methodology, particularly the potential confusion between traditional jurisprudential ruling (fiqh al-ahkam) and jurisprudential theorization (fiqh al-nazariyya). Two primary counterarguments were articulated: first, highlighting essential distinctions between these two categories of jurisprudence, and second, re-framing debates to focus precisely on the epistemic foundations and legitimacy of juristic synthesis rather than peripheral or methodological misconceptions.

‌ ∴ Conclusion ∴ ‌
Through an extensive exploration of the synergistic authority concept, this research provided substantial theoretical validation for integrating multiple juristic opinions as a credible methodology in jurisprudential theorization. It was established that genuine theoretical attribution to Sharia mandates achieving a threshold of certainty, either through inductive reasoning combined with minor closure or through legitimate juristic guardianship authority. Thus, the epistemic credibility of synergized opinions emerges not merely from convenience or expediency, but from deep-seated jurisprudential principles.
     Resolving major epistemological and methodological objections, the synergistic authority model effectively addresses fundamental inconsistencies previously encountered in jurisprudential theorization, particularly discrepancies arising from isolated juristic interpretations. By systematically harnessing collective juristic wisdom, this approach expands interpretive capacities, facilitating a coherent integration of juristic insights into comprehensive Islamic legal theories.
     Practically, adopting the synergistic method empowers the Islamic jurist-ruler (Wali al-Faqih) with a legitimate jurisprudential strategy to consolidate and standardize governance rulings across political, economic, social, and penal domains.
     Applying the synergistic method to criminal law notably elucidates deeper jurisprudential and policy objectives underlying Hudud. Clarifying these objectives offers significant jurisprudential advancements, resolving interpretive ambiguities while practically guiding legislative and policymaking processes. This enhanced understanding critically informs and refines the design and enactment of complementary ta’zir (discretionary) punishments, enriching the overall Islamic penal system with coherence and robust epistemological support.
     Thus, the validation of the synergistic authority not only resolves theoretical complexities inherent in jurisprudential theorization but also significantly enhances practical legislative efficacy.