examining the jurisprudential ruling on the prohibition of keeping books of deviation

the prohibition of keeping some books referred to as ‘books of deviation’ has been included in books of jurisprudence since the past to the present. the definition of deviation (and conformity) and misguidance (and guidance) in the language of jurists is not so clear; however, when speaking about the prohibition of keeping (or of its destruction), they mean prevention from hearing (and getting informed) of other sayings; and the evidence raised in this regard also combines the two positions of hearing (and getting informed) and following, apparently based on the assumption that there is an association between hearing (and getting informed) and following, and if hearing is prevented, following will certainly be abandoned in consequence. as a result, firstly, the claimed evidences fail to prove a mandate relating to prevention from hearing; secondly, mixing the two positions is not permitted since mere hearing does not lead to following and there is no association between them. finally, because of the existence of the qur’an itself as a ‘congregation of words’ scripture, leaving to humans the task of selecting and following the best among the different sayings, with no coercion in this field, and due to the existence of ‘the best of words’ (god’s word) in the qur’an as the standard criterion, discussion of destruction of the book or of the prohibition of its literal hearing would be meaningless.