عنوان مقاله [English]
The issue of the validity of the document as an independent argument has always been debated. In this regard, the opinion of those who believe in its invalidity has led to the annulment of many legal articles, and has caused the diversity of the theoretical and judicial views. Those who believe in the validity of the document have always tried to reject the arguments of the opponents based on arguments such as the importance of documents in society, without examining the basis of the arguments of the opponents. The current study seeks to answer these questions through a descriptive-analytical method and library tools: Are the arguments of the opponents of the validity of the document strong enough? After obtaining its validity, if the document is in conflict with the testimony, which one is more dominant? The arguments of the opponents are stated in the narrations known as "the writings of the judge to the judge", "the correspondence of Ja'far ibn Isa" and the narration of "judgment based on evidence and oath", which by examining them, the non-implication of the claim of invalidity of the document is proved. In the end, it is concluded that the arguments of the opponents are not strong enough. Arguments of the dominance of the document over the testimony are examined in the following items such as the priority of the document based on the context of the verse of religion, the criterion of the first verses of Surah Qalam, the importance of words, the immunity of the document from inadvertence and forgetfulness in face of the testimony, the priority of written narrations over heard narrations, the criterion of the principle of Souq, the principle of necessity of permission in the object, and Sira al-Mutashare'eh (the conduct of people of religion).
* قرآن کریم (مترجم: محمدمهدی فولادوند).