In order to understand some topics taken from the language of evidence, in addition to lexical studies, historical and even archaeological research is also needed; that is, the jurist must expand his circle of studies so that he can understand, for example, that such and such an expression or term, such as the word “Taghanni” has been found in reprehensible narrations, what exactly it refers to, what cases it included, and what characteristics it had?

Although topic analysis has been relevant in the science of jurisprudence for a long time, with the expansion of topics in recent decades and the emergence of amazing topics in the contemporary era, it has gained double importance. It can be said that topic analysis is difficult in two ways; One is that the issues that the lawgiver ruled on at the time of issuing the text must be known, and the other is that the issues that exist in the contemporary era need to be examined. We sat down with Hujjat al-lslam wa al-Muslimin Sadiq Alam al-Huda to discuss the nature, importance, and position of subject matter in contemporary jurisprudence. In his teachings and research, he has always emphasized the need for accurate and expert subject matter and has always tried to help various jurisprudential centers in this matter. The details of the exclusive conversation on contemporary jurisprudence with this young teacher of courses outside jurisprudence and principles at the Qum Seminary are as follows:

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What is the importance of subject matter?

Mr. Alam al-Huda: Without a doubt, the subject matter is involved in the ruling and is essentially considered as the cause of the ruling; that is, the role of the subject matter in relation to the ruling is the role of the cause in relation to the cause. Therefore, understanding the ruling is not possible without understanding the subject matter, and the jurist cannot issue a fatwa without knowing the subject matter in detail.

For example: enrichment or wealth, if the subject matter is a forbidden matter, the jurist must know exactly what this enrichment means and what examples it refers to, otherwise he will not have understood the ruling. For this reason, conceptual doubts that are due to the jurist’s ignorance of the subjects are considered among the doubts of jurisprudence. Therefore, subject matter in ruling is of great importance and perhaps as important as understanding the ruling.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Given that jurists are not experts in all subjects, how can they be sure of the correct identification of the subject?

Mr. Alam al-Huda: Here, let me first make a note that identifying the subject is different from identifying the case of the subject. The two must be separated. It is up to the jurist to determine exactly what the subject of the ruling is; that is, in order for the jurist to arrive at a ruling, he must first draw the subject in his mind and then search for its ruling. This fact is undeniable; but whether or not the case of this subject has been realized externally may be beyond the jurist’s ability to determine. What is entrusted to those responsible and not considered the jurist’s duty is to identify the cases of the subject, not to identify the subject itself. Sometimes, the jurist may know the subject well and be able to explain it well, but he himself is not able to identify the case and it is necessary to refer to an expert; such as the tathkiyah of halal animals, which is subject to the four-fold separation. Now, we should ask the expert whether the four joints have been cut in the animal, because the jurist may not be able to determine whether the four joints have been cut in this animal.

But he must know what exactly is the subject of the tathkiyah and what does free from the four joints mean? He must understand this, although he may have difficulty in applying it; therefore, at the very beginning, a distinction must be made between determining the subject of the ruling and determining the subject of the case.

Regarding subjects, we have two types of subjects. Some subjects are not new, but rather old subjects. In these cases, since the recognition of the subject has been left to custom and the criterion is the same subjects that were central in the minds of custom at the time of the issuance of the text, recognizing the subject is sometimes not easy and sometimes not possible at all. This is a reality that we must acknowledge; because we do not have access to the centers of the people of the time of the issuance of the text, or the path is paved with difficulty.

Accordingly, I believe that in order to understand some of the topics covered in the language of evidence, in addition to lexical studies, historical and even archaeological research is also needed; that is, the jurist must expand his scope of studies so that he can understand, for example, that such and such an expression or term, such as the word “Taghanni”, has been found in reprehensible narrations, what exactly did it refer to, what cases did it include, and what characteristics did it have?

The jurist must also observe the temporal and spatial developments and adapt them to the time and place of his era and period; because the subject may have changed and transformed during the temporal and spatial developments. It is by observing these developments that the jurist can explain the subject based on extensive studies, detailed discussion, and adaptation to the characteristics that can be applied in the present era.

This is a logical process for understanding the subjects that are taken in the ruling; therefore, in the first place, he must first fully understand the subject taken in the argument along with its conditions and limitations by thoroughly examining the vocabulary, history, and geography of that time period, then, taking into account the temporal and spatial developments, observe the subject in relation to its time and place, and finally explain it with characteristics that can be understood and applied in today’s era.

However, in new subjects, the jurist needs to refer to an expert. For example: Cryptocurrency or digital currency and other such matters, the jurist must fully understand and find out what it is and on what basis it has gained value in order to be able to judge it, otherwise, if he does not have accurate knowledge, he cannot rule on these issues.

Of course, referring to an expert is only useful if he is sure of his statement; because the expert’s statement is not a religious argument unless we believe that the testimony of two just experts is considered an argument based on religious evidence, which is a matter that must be examined.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Scholars of various sciences believe that no one can solve the problems of those sciences unless he has studied them and has not made serious studies. Now, can a jurist express an accurate picture of that issue by simply being familiar with an issue?

Alam al-Huda: The issues of rulings are usually not complex categories. This is why they say: “The lesson is understood by the common sense”; because the issues are related to common ground. However, in any case, when you believe that it is permissible to imitate a jurist in ruling, you necessarily believe that it is permissible to imitate a jurist in the subject; the two cannot be separated. It cannot be said that a jurist is permissible to imitate in ruling, but not in the subject. Because it is impossible to separate the ruling and the subject. The two are intertwined and related, and the details of the two are in no way mutually exclusive.

Therefore, if a jurist recognizes a subject and issues a fatwa based on it, just as his ruling is evidence, the subject that he has presented for this ruling is also evidence, unless someone is certain in some way that the jurist has made a mistake in recognizing the subject, in which case the opinion of a mufti in a scholar cannot be evidence; Because the validity of the Mufti’s statement is related to the apparent validity and the assumption of lack of knowledge, while our assumption is that the mukallaf person has actually acquired knowledge in some way; therefore, the Mufti’s statement, like an “emirah”, will not be considered as evidence against the knowledgeable mukallaf.

As is the case with the ruling; if someone knows in any way that the jurist has made a mistake in a certain fatwa he has given, the jurist’s fatwa is no longer evidence for him!

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What is the position of subject matter in other sciences?

Alam al-Huda: The question is ambiguous. If you mean how important subject matter is in sciences other than jurisprudence, the answer is that every ruling in every science is dependent on knowing its subject matter, and a ruling cannot be issued without knowing the subject matter accurately. Every prescription that a physician writes is dependent on knowing the case precisely, because he cannot write a prescription for it without knowing the location of the pain and the case of the disease. This is an indisputable fact.

But if your meaning is whether a jurist should refer to other sciences in knowing subject matter, it must be said: Yes, sometimes it is necessary, especially in new subjects, for a jurist to refer to an expert and specialist in the matter to analyze and explain the subject matter for him accurately so that he can extract the ruling from the texts by citing evidence.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Does subject matter in the science of jurisprudence, especially contemporary jurisprudence, have a different importance than subject matter in other sciences?

Alam al-Huda: In general, the diversity of subjects in jurisprudence is very large compared to other sciences and covers almost all areas. Therefore, subject matter in jurisprudence may be more important due to the diversity of subjects and the wide scope. However, in other sciences, due to their smaller scope compared to the science of jurisprudence, it is less important and limited.