عنوان مقاله [English]
In the issue of the replacement of presumptive evidence (amarat) and principle with types of certitude (qate), two arguments are put forward: the first argument is that what kinds of qate these are replaced with. The second is that wether the use of preumptive evidence and principles in place of certitude by men of reason denotes its replacement with certitude. As for the first argument, the fundamentalists expressed different points of view and each has their own reasons and adherents. Out of these, Imam Khomeini believes that presumptive evidence and principles only take the place of the incomplete certitude to the situation, not the complete certitude to the situation, or incomplete or complete descriptive sitution, or the pure situation certitude. As for the second issue, the well-known fundamentalists believe that the presumptive evidence and principles are used as the replacement of certitude, and in case of lack of certitude, men of reason definitely use presumptive evidence and principle in place of certitude on a regular basis. On the contrary, Imam Khomeini believes that the argument for the replacement of presumptive evidence with certitude is basically inaccurate and men of reason have acted upon certitude in its presence and in its absence and the presence of reasonable sign, they act upon that sign and evidence without concern for its replacement or downgrading (tanzil). That is because, from the point of view of Imam Khomeini, validity of the rational presumptive sign does not depend on the validity and reliability of presumptive evidence and complementary aspect of revealing reality, but rather has an independent validity. Based on this, we should not look for legal rendering as complementing the disclosure to the presumptive evidence, to act upon certitude. This study used a descriptive-analytical approach and library resources to examine different opinions and their evidence and emphasize the accuracy of Imam Khomeini's opinion.