عنوان مقاله [English]
One of the discussions that are studied in principles of jurisprudence is the nature of the reason stance in the cases of doubt on the existence of a binding obligation on the part of God. Contrary to the principles common among fundamentalists, two of contemporary fundamentalists, namely Ayatollah Ṣadr and Ayatollah Muḥaqiq Dāmād, have considered reason stance as a necessary precaution in this regard, which the viewpoint of Ayatollah Sadr, known as the right of compliance (ḥaqq al-ṭā‘a) theory. In this article, a comparison is made between these two explanations of the ḥaqq al-ṭā‘a theory, and a series of facts about them would be proposed. Then, one of the most important criticisms about ḥaqq al-ṭā‘a theory, i.e. the criticism of Ayatollah Amoli Larijani is explained, and it is also trying to respond to the proposed objections.