Every practical principle has a channel that, if that channel is complete, no one can avoid using it and must act according to that practical principle. For example, if there is a case of precedent somewhere, one must act according to istishab and if there is a basic doubt somewhere, one must act according to acquittal; therefore, it is not up to us to adhere to practical principles or not, and in this regard, there is no difference between art jurisprudence and non-art jurisprudence.
Note: There is a great difference between scholars of principles and jurisprudence in applying principles to solve art jurisprudence issues. Some believe that with these basic rules, it is possible to infer effective rulings from all contemporary jurisprudence, including art jurisprudence, and therefore, there is no difference between art jurisprudence and other contemporary jurisprudence. On the other hand, some believe that with the knowledge of principles, which is based on tanjiz and ta’zir and does not care about the discovery of evidence such as practical principles, only the good of the hereafter is achieved, not the prosperity of the Muslim world. For this reason, we talked to teacher Saifullah Sarami. He has made art jurisprudence one of his research areas for years and has written several articles on the subject. He is among the first group in this debate and does not believe in the need to add other evidence to the knowledge of principles. The following is an exclusive interview with a member of the Council of Research Institute of the Contemporary Fiqh Research Institute:
– Are the current evidences in the science of principles sufficient to solve the problems of art jurisprudence, or should other evidences be added to it?
Mr. Sarami: First, let me briefly state that among the evidences that have been proposed regarding art jurisprudence and have been proposed in jurisprudence books since ancient times, we can mention verses of the Holy Qur’an such as the verse of Yashtari Lahu al-Hadith, as well as narrations that have been included in the field of singing, music, and buying and selling of musical instruments, etc.
But the most important point is that the evidences in the science of principles are sufficient to solve the problems of art jurisprudence. Based on my experience and having written several articles in the field of art jurisprudence, as well as theses and jurisprudence texts that others have written, I must say that I do not know of any place where it is necessary to add a specific evidence to the science of principles of jurisprudence in order to be able to answer its problems.
But the detailed answer is that sometimes the source is meant; That is, where the rulings of the Shari’ah exist and these rulings are extracted from there, such as the Holy Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Infallibles (‘a). Sometimes the meaning of the reason is the path, branch, and way that that path is used from that source, such as the single news. One of the ways to use the Sunnah of the Infallibles (‘a) is to use the single news, which is called the path and sometimes the reason; therefore, if you mean that sources are added, this is strictly excluded; because the meaning of the sources that are discussed in the principles of jurisprudence are the sources that are discussed in theological foundations, such as the book, the Sunnah, consensus, and reason. These are the sources of jurisprudence. Of course, because the Sunnis were deprived of the knowledge of the Infallible Imams (‘a), they added sources such as analogy, the material of the message,… and included them in the sources, because their sources of jurisprudence were not sufficient to answer their questions.
But if we consider the reason in the second sense, the need to add the reason is still a matter of tolerance; because the reason must be discovered, not added, in the sense that someone may discover a new way to reach the content of the Holy Qur’an; but he does not add a source.
Another point is that, in my opinion, it is not the case that the understanding in the jurisprudence of art has a characteristic that requires a source to be added to it; rather, the jurisprudence of art, like other human behaviors, has its own rules and the principles of jurisprudence have their own place regarding these behaviors.
– Can we express effective fatwas regarding the jurisprudence of art with a text-centric approach and disregard for the purposes of the Shari’ah?
Mr. Sarami: First, let me make a few points about the terms of the question:
First: There are different interpretations of the central text. Sometimes the central text means the same as the Akhbarism and the Akhbaris, and sometimes it means that the rules of the Shari’ah should be taken from the author of the Shari’ah and not from anyone else.
Second: The purposes of the Shari’ah are sometimes the general purposes of the Shari’ah, such as the dignity and security of man, the enjoyment of worldly and hereafter happiness, etc., and sometimes the philosophy of each rule. In this regard, I would like to briefly state that if it is proven that such a thing is the purpose of the Shari’ah and it is also proven that this behavior certainly leads to the purpose of the Shari’ah, it is trustworthy; but otherwise, it cannot be trusted.
Third: What is meant by efficiency? Is it something that is quickly established and that society acts on and approves of? Or does it mean that the beliefs of the society should be corrected and the happiness of the society should be guaranteed and a series of rulings should be implemented in the society so that the society likes it? The answer to this question requires a detailed discussion.
But as for whether it is possible to express effective fatwas in relation to the jurisprudence of art with a text-centric approach and paying attention to the objectives of the Shari’ah? The problem, and rather my answer, is that firstly, the jurisprudence of art has no characteristics and secondly, considering the explanations provided, we should define the meaning of the text-centric approach. If the meaning of the text-centric approach is that the legislator himself should state his rulings in the Book and Sunnah, we can have effective fatwas that will secure the future of humanity.
– By adhering to the principles of practice that merely express the hereafter, can the issues of the jurisprudence of art, which are important matters for regulating people’s worldly lives, be resolved effectively?
Sarami: Prior to stating the essence of the question, it should be noted that apparently what is meant by tanjiz and ta’zir is the validity of the principles of practice, just as the single news and… which are proofs have the same meaning as tanjiz and ta’zir. If tanjiz and ta’zir have this meaning, there is no difference between the principles of practice and the single news.
Considering adhering to the principles of practice, it should be kept in mind that every principle of practice has a channel that, if that channel is complete, no one can fail to apply and must act according to that principle of practice. For example, if there is a case of precedent somewhere, one must act according to istisahab, and if there is a basic doubt somewhere, one must act according to acquittal; therefore, it is not up to us to adhere to the principles of practice or not, and in this regard, there is no difference between the jurisprudence of art and non-art.
Regarding these explanations, my answer to your question is positive. Yes, with practical principles that are proof, one can obtain effective fatwas that regulate the lives of people in the world.
– To better and more efficiently solve the problems of contemporary jurisprudence, especially the jurisprudence of art, what changes should be made in the foundations, philosophy, assumptions, and approaches of the fundamentalists?
Sarami: On the whole, every science, including principles, jurisprudence, medical science, and even the humanities, is changing and evolving throughout history and today. When different issues and perspectives are presented to these sciences, these sciences expand, and some topics in them become outdated and are set aside.
The knowledge of principles of jurisprudence is generally the same. For example, there is a great difference between the principles of jurisprudence written by Shaykh Mufid and what Ayatullah Khu’i wrote, and in the latter, newer issues have been raised. This is also natural.
Something, of course, may happen in the jurisprudence of art specifically, and the same may happen in matters of purity and prayer, for example, causing the use of the reason for obstruction or causing us to pay more attention to the authenticity of appearances; but my point is that the jurisprudence of art and contemporary jurisprudence are not specifically relevant, but rather all sciences may undergo changes and transformations.
The dialogue is part of the electronic magazine “Principles of Art Jurisprudence”, which was produced in cooperation with the School of Art Jurisprudence and the Ijtihad Network website.