Document Type : Original Article

Authors

• Mahnaz Amirkhani ¹
• Fathiyeh Fattahizadeh ²
• Hosna Hemmati ³

¹ Associate Professor ، Department of Philosophy and Islamic Wisdom Faculty of Theology ;Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran

² Professor , Department of Quranic Studies and Hadith, Faculty of Theology, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran

³ Masters of Philosophy and Islamic Wisdom Faculty of Theology Alzahra University , Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Abstract

The belief in the public justice of the Prophet Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) companions is the predominant tenet in Sunni doctrine. In Sunni sources, consensus (ijma') and transmitted reasons have been used to prove public justice. The current study, employing logical reasoning and sophistry methods, evaluates the proposition that "all companions are just and the reasons supporting In implemented research, several sophistries, including blind adherence to authority, hasty generalizing, sophistry in the value of words, and Nothing But Sophistry, have been achieved. For instance, Sunni followers have accepted the public justice doctrine based on the authority of consensus, which is also a trusted religious reference. However, this study reveals that the "consensus reason" involves the sophistry of "blind adherence to authority." This indicates that the influence and authority of the religious reference have caused historical and social evidence to be understated, affirming the companions' public justice. Ultimately, through some proven evidence and refusing the proposition that "all companions are just," the concept of public justice is deemed to be weak and invalid.

Keywords

• Public Justice
• Logical analysis
• Fallacy of Public Justice
• Accident Fallacy
• Poisoning the Well Fallacy