Check it:
The author of the article addressed the rule of reason as one of the four proofs and reviewed the sayings and then the connection between the rule of reason and the rule of Sharia and the division of the rule of reason into theoretical and practical reason and the opinions received from philosophers in this field. Thus, he presented the meanings of good and bad and what he says. The Ash'ari, Mu'tazila, and Imami, and in conclusion, what is meant by the rule of reason, which is one of the four proofs? The Shiite fundamentalists consider reason one of the four proofs, and they have important discussions in this section. The Ash'aris take steps in this field in their talk about rational beauty and ugliness.Research into goodness and ugliness requires talking about their different meanings, and exposure to the meaning of reason calls for dividing it into theoretical reason and practical reason, and finally talking about legal rulings and rational rulings moves to researching the concept of the rule of immanence: I mean everything that the mind has ruled, it has ruled by. Al-Sharaa, and As a result, the position and position of the mind becomes clear as it is one of the pieces of evidence. But before all of this and before addressing the origin of the topic, it is better that we begin by presenting the issue and mentioning the opinions of early and late researchers on it.
Machine summary:
1) Apparently, there was no reference before the time of Sheikh Al-Mufid (may God Almighty be pleased with him) to the issue of the evidence of reason, and the first to speak about the rule of reason was Sheikh Al-Mufid (may God bless him and grant him peace), when he said in the chapter on reason, “It is a path to knowing the authenticity of the Qur’an and its evidence.” Al-Akhbar” [1413: 11] In this speech, reason is considered a path to revelation through arriving at the authenticity of the Qur’an and Sunnah. 3) The late investigator divides the evidence of the rulings into two parts, and some of this evidence depends on the speech, which in turn is divided into “the melody of the speech,” “the evidence of the speech,” and “the content of the speech,” and he says in the other section:“What the mind alone can denote.” [Tusi: 7] And based on this division, there is no need for discourse on some matters. Others say: Even if it is not possible to deny this obligation, is it necessary to obey the legal ruling obtained through the obligation with rational evidence? Is obedience here also obligatory, or does obedience relate to the place from which the command of the Sharia arrives in a specific way? In any case, the concomitance exists; This is because when the mind realizes that there is a binding interest in this matter, and realizes that this matter is part of praiseworthy opinions, and the opinions of rational people agree that injustice is evil and justice is good, or that honesty is good and lying is evil, how can it be said that the legislator disagrees with this matter?How can he violate the Holy Law, when he is the head of the rational people and their creator, who makes the law according to the rational people and legislates it? This is not the case, but rather he comes and judges according to this ruling of rational people, that is, just as we recognize, on the basis of reason, the opinions of rational people, and the agreement of the opinions of rational people, good honesty and good justice - and they are part of praiseworthy opinions - the Holy Law also says, affirming that this matter is “ “Good,” and when we reach the state of “it should be abandoned,” the Holy Law does not come and rule contrary to all the opinions of rational people. Accordingly, the implication is established according to the law of causality, which is: Does knowledge of the cause necessitate knowledge of the effect?