Abstract:
المعروف بین الفقهاء و الأصولیین دلالة حدیث ما غلب الله علی معذوریة المضطرّ – فی مخالفة الأحکام الکتلیفیة – فحسب و عدم دلالته علی صحة العمل الفاقد للجزء أو الشرط أو المشتمل علی المانع، والحکم بوجوب الإعادة أو القضاء علیه.
لکنّا فی هذه الوجیزة بصدد بیان عدم وجوب القضاء علی المضطرّ فی الاخلال بما یعتبر فی المرکبات والمقیدات استناداً إلی بعض القواعد، هذا من ناحیة. و من ناحیة أخری إثبات شمول القاعدة هذه للجاهل القاصر، و من ناحیة ثالثة بیان إمکان استفادة اختصاص الجزئیة و الشرطیة و المانعیة بغیر موارد الاضطرار و القصور، و من الواضح هاتان قاعدتان أخیریهما اصولیة و الأخری فقهیّة و قد فصّلنا الکلام حول ذلک فی بعض رسائلنا.
Jurisprudences and usulis are consensus that hadith of "ما غلب الله " only implies
exculpatoriness of constrained legal agents for disagreement in injunctive rulings (ahkam taklifiyya), and does not imply validity of an act which be performed without its components or conditions or include preventivity. The ruling is obligatoriness of re-doing or making up for that practice.
This article is going to verify, in the first stage, which according to some of principles, if an act be performed without all of its components and conditions on compulsion, making up of it, is not obligatory.
Secondly, this ruling includes cases that act is performed without its components or conditions by ignorant legal agents too.
And thirdly, "the principle of competence of particularity, conditionality and preventivity for constrained legal agents", can be used for cases that act is performed without its components or conditions by non-ignorant and non-constrained legal agents.
It is obvious that the last principle is due to Usul and the second is due to Fegh which I verified it in other paper.