نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشآموخته سطح 4 حوزه علمیه قم و استاد، گروه معارف دانشگاه امام حسین(ع)، تهران، ایران.
2 استاد، گروه معارف دانشگاه امام حسین(ع)، تهران، ایران.
3 دانشآموخته سطح 3 حوزه علمیه و دانشجوی دکتری مدرسی معارف اسلامی گرایش انقلاب،دانشکده الهیات و ادیان دانشگاه شهید بهشتی(ره)، تهران، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
One of the issues regarding fasting is the fasting of elderly individuals. Various scenarios have been proposed, including ability, inability, hardship, and difficulty. In the cases of hardship and difficulty, there are different opinions among jurists. This research undertakes a jurisprudential examination of these opinions and their evidences. Based on the research findings, if fasting involves hardship and difficulty, two scenarios are conceivable: First, if fasting entails harm, it is not permissible due to the rule of no harm (Qa'idat La Zarar), the Qur’anic verse, and the fundamental principle of the rule of no hardship. Second, if fasting does not entail harm, then two opinions among jurists are discussed in this scenario. Some jurists hold that this kind of fasting is valid (right), while others explicitly state that fasting is invalid (batil) and prohibited (haram). Both opinions have provided evidence to support their claims. Based on the research findings, the view that fasting is invalid (batil) and not permissible is prioritized. This study, using a descriptive-analytical method, examines the opinions of jurists and their evidences.
کلیدواژهها [English]
* قرآن کریم