بازتاب پارادايـمِ فقه حيل در الكافي كليني گزارش ها، تمايزها و فرضيه ها

Reflection of the paradigm of fiqh al-ḥiyal (circumvention of the law) in al-Kāfī by all-Kulayni; reports, differentiations and hypotheses

در روزگار كليني كاربست حيل در فقه اسلامي نظريهاي شايع و فراگير است و تقريباً در غالب ابواب فقهي حضور جدي دارد و اعتبار آن نزد جمهور فقيهان مسلّم و قطعي است. از جمله ادله طرفداران نظريه جواز حيل در مسأله زناي مريض، تبديل مجازات حد زنا از شلاق به تركه صدتايي از شاخه خرما با استناد به آيه (وَ خُذْ بِيَدِكَ ضِغْثًا فَاضْرِبْ بِهِ وَ لَا تَحْنَثْ) است. كليني مضمون اين دليل را با اسانيد خود از امام صادق7 گزارش كرده است. اعتبارسنجي گزارشهاي كليني، تفاوتها و تمايزهاي آن با ديگر گزارشهاي موجود در جوامع حديثي اماميه و اهل سنّت، مسأله اصلي اين نگاشته است. برآيند پژوهش، مناقشه در يك گزارش كليني است كه تمايزها و تفاوتهاي آن با ساير گزارشهاي شيعي و اهل سنّت را ضمن چند فرضيه، تبيين نموديم و در نهايت در طبقهبندي كليني در زمره طرفداران پارادايم جواز حيل در استدلال به آيه فوق، در مسأله حد زنا مريض، ترديد شده است.

At the time of al-Kulaynī it was common to apply circumvention in the Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) and that it had a serious presence nearly in most of the chapters of jurisprudence and that its reliability in the eyes of the majority of the jurisprudents was indisputable. One of the proofs for the advocates of the hypothesis of permissibility of circumvention in the ruling about a sick person who has committed fornication is that his fixed legal punishment of fornication (ḥadd al-zinā) has changed from flogging to striking with a fagot or a bunch of hundred dried sticks of date palm, on the strength of the verse “Take a fagot in your hand and then strike [your wife] with it, but do not break [your] oath.” (Q 38:44). Al-Kulaynī has reported the content of this proof with his isnads from Imam Ja‘far al-Ṣādiq (‘a.s.). The validity assessment of Kulaynī’s reports, as well as their differences and differentiations with other reports existing in the Twelver Shi‘a and the Sunni hadith collections is the main problem of this writing. The result of this research is to dispute one of al-Kulaynī’s reports. We have explained in some hypotheses the differentiations, and differences between it and other Shi‘a and Sunni reports. We have concluded that it is dubious to consider al-Kulaynī among the advocates of the paradigm of permissibility of circumvention in the ruling for the fixed legal punishment of fornication committed by a sick person by reasoning on the strength of the above verse.