Order From the Point of View of Mohaqeq Naini and Its Jurisprudential Effects

 



One of the important topics of the science of principles, which has been covered by many works, is the issue of order, which was first discussed by Mohaqqeq Karaki and then the researchers after him. Is it possible to achieve the order belongs to the most important in the case of disobeying the order belongs to the important thing? There is a difference of opinion that some people believe in refusal and some believe in the possibility of it, among those who took the second point of view and raised the possibility of the order of proof is Mohaqeq Naini. After correcting and explaining the point of conflict and explaining that the source of the conflict between the most important and the important is the application of the two and not the two behest themselves, he says: if order means consensus between the opposites, as the proponents have this illusion, impasibility and refusal of order is obvious and necessary, because the obligee is not able to comply with the opposites at the same time, but this is not the case, by conditioning the most important to the important, leaving the important to the most important and ordering the important to the the most important is overcome by leaving the matter to the importance.





 



One of the important topics of the science of principles, which has been covered by many works, is the issue of order, which was first discussed by Mohaqqeq Karaki and then the researchers after him. Is it possible to achieve the order belongs to the most important in the case of disobeying the order belongs to the important thing? There is a difference of opinion that some people believe in refusal and some believe in the possibility of it, among those who took the second point of view and raised the possibility of the order of proof is Mohaqeq Naini. After correcting and explaining the point of conflict and explaining that the source of the conflict between the most important and the important is the application of the two and not the two behest themselves, he says: if order means consensus between the opposites, as the proponents have this illusion, impasibility and refusal of order is obvious and necessary, because the obligee is not able to comply with the opposites at the same time, but this is not the case, by conditioning the most important to the important, leaving the important to the most important and ordering the important to the the most important is overcome by leaving the matter to the importance.
In this article, first the arguments of those who refuse to order are quoted, then the argument of Mohaqeq Naini on the possibility of ordering and criticizing the arguments of the opponents is described and explained, and finally, after quoting the problems with the argument of Mohaqeq Naini on the possibility of ordering and criticizing them, Mohaqeq Naini's point of view is preferred, because according to the writer, Naini's evidence on the possibility is stronger. At the end, some jurisprudential results related to the issue of order have been mentioned.