Ethical jurisprudence believes that jurisprudence must weigh its statements with the findings of ethics, and ethics is in fact the balance of jurisprudence. In ethical jurisprudence, rational cognitions take precedence over auditory and narrative cognitions, rational perception takes precedence over jurisprudential pronouncements, and the jurist is obliged to weigh his fatwa against ethical criteria and standards after the inference operation, and if he finds any inconsistency, what is doomed to be invalid is the fatwa, not the ethical perception.
Many believe that a large part of the jurisprudential and fundamental disputes return to the theological foundations of these two sciences. Hujjat al-Islam wa al-Muslimin Muh. Kadim Haqqani Fadl, who, in addition to studying and teaching the science of jurisprudence, also specialized in the field of theology and has taught many times, believes that a precise definition of moral jurisprudence is impossible without explaining its theological foundations. In this special note, the editor of the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Jurisprudence attempts to explain the theological foundations of moral jurisprudence and the implications of each of its works in the scope and results of this jurisprudential chapter.
Introduction
The entry of Muslims into the new world and the jurists’ encounter with new issues paved the way for discussions, criticisms, and defenses about the scope, requirements, and merits of jurisprudence. The emergence of a phenomenon called additional jurisprudence is a product of these scientific and jurisprudential challenges. The jurisprudence of morality is also one of several names that has occupied several scholars in the list of additional jurisprudences. Although the complete garment of moral jurisprudence has not yet been sewn, some have begun to evaluate jurisprudence using the standard of morality, and the term moral jurisprudence has also entered the scientific arena. This note is a brief overview of the definition and foundations of these two sciences.
Moral jurisprudence, at a basic glance, is a science whose subject is human moral actions, and its method is the text-based ijtihad method, and its sources are the book and the tradition. This knowledge, which should actually be part of the knowledge of minor jurisprudence, attempts to clarify the duties of believers in the religion of Islam in some behaviors and situations that are often not worshipful and transactional.
The precise demarcation of moral jurisprudence depends on clarifying the boundaries of morality. And until it is clear what we are talking about when we talk about morality, we will not be able to draw a clear boundary between moral jurisprudence and other parts of jurisprudence.
What is called ethics in the literature of religious scholars today includes several cognitive areas; Moral qualities or virtues and vices, behavioral dos and don’ts, values and counter-values of the heart and the mind, the method of education and achieving virtues, and sometimes even the individual’s path towards spirituality. It is clear that it is not possible to gain knowledge about all these issues with the known methods of inference and jurisprudential ijtihad. Conventional jurisprudence has based its foundation on recognizing the duties of those who are obligated, and has left the foundations, assumptions, goals, and even the explanation of the relationship between principles and goals to other sciences; but if, following a group of scholars, we consider the scope of ethics to be limited to interpersonal relationships and respecting the rights of others, then it is easier for us to speak of the jurisprudence of ethics and place it in a part of minor jurisprudence.
Some scholars have also tried to depict the actions of the heart and the mind, at least in some cases that have a jurisprudential ruling; Because these acts of the heart are the result of behavioral prerequisites, or those that can be treated and eliminated by behaviors. Such as suspicion and jealousy and the like. In this case, the scope of ethics will include internalities in addition to interaction with others.
Accepting the jurisprudence of ethics with the definition mentioned above is based on the premise that the comprehensiveness and perfection of religion also includes ethical propositions and that what is stated in the book and tradition in the field of ethics is sufficient for human life. However, if someone (1) considers ethics to be dependent on rational and rational perception rather than auditory and narrative, and (2) defines rational perception as pre-perception, then ethics will be considered a separate knowledge from jurisprudence and the method of understanding its issues will also be different from the method of jurisprudential ijtihad.
Of course, if people like Ayatullah Javadi Amuli insist on giving reason a special status in the geometry of religious knowledge and directly considering rational inferences as part of religion, then a path will be opened for understanding moral propositions as jurisprudential. For instance, by relying on the principle of negation, we can bridge the gap from moral obligations (rational goodness and ugliness) to religious obligations (obligatory and forbidden).
However, those who define ethics as a completely extra-religious and pre-religious knowledge, and define moral propositions as rational and supra-religious, and classify religious moral recommendations as guiding commands and prohibitions, believe that based on the principles of justice, jurisprudence must be in harmony with justice, and since they consider justice to be rational, then it is possible for those who are obligated to know the criteria, that is, the instances of justice, therefore, ethics is not only not part of jurisprudence but is a knowledge that is important to jurisprudence.
From here, a tendency called moral jurisprudence is revealed. Moral jurisprudence is an additional combination, but moral jurisprudence is a descriptive combination. In the first, jurisprudence is a method for knowing morality, and unless a jurisprudential method is in place, morality based on religion will not be realized. But in the second, morality is a description of jurisprudence; That is, before jurisprudence, it is the truth and its realization does not depend on jurisprudence, but it is jurisprudence that can be described as ethics or not.
Moral jurisprudence believes that jurisprudence must weigh its propositions with the findings of ethics, and ethics is in fact the scale of jurisprudence. In moral jurisprudence, rational cognitions take precedence over auditory and narrative cognitions. Rational perception is preferred over jurisprudential statements, and the jurist is obliged to weigh his fatwa with moral criteria and standards after the inference operation, and if he finds an inconsistency, what is condemned to be invalid is the fatwa and not the moral perception.
But on the other side of the issue, another issue exists; as follows: The jurisprudential effort to recognize moral obligations from narrative texts, or moral jurisprudence, is based on a fundamental proposition; And that is, based on the theory of the subordination of rulings to real interests and corruptions, moral values are embedded in the essence of religious propositions (the Book and the Sunnah), and as soon as the jurist goes through the process of ijtihad based on the criteria of ijtihad, what he deduces is also in harmony with justice and morality; and if someone’s rational perception is contrary to this fatwa, what has gone wrong is that rational perception, not the jurist’s fatwa! God has sent His religion comprehensive and complete, and this religion has reached us in a comprehensive and complete form, and a comprehensive and complete religion cannot be incompatible with genuine moral values. Because the God of jurisprudence is the same God of morality, and He has expressed everything He has asked of His servants through the mouths of His messengers. The supposed inconsistencies between moral perception and jurisprudential findings arise from our ignorance of the real interests and corruptions, the knowledge of which is not available to us. This tendency can be said to be sitting on the throne of retirement and ruling by Ash’ari law.
In other words, the difference between moral jurisprudence and ethical jurisprudence lies in a very fundamental conflict; and that is the scope and power of reason in recognizing truths and the authority of rational knowledge. Moral jurisprudence considers ethics to be rational and claims that with reason one can recognize the criteria, interests, and corruptions of moral rulings, and this rational knowledge is also valid and authoritative knowledge. It is on this basis that individuals can distinguish the most important and important in different situations and recognize their duty in the conflict between jurisprudence and ethics.
Another point that can be mentioned in the distinction between moral jurisprudence and ethical jurisprudence is the position of a collection of hadiths and religious texts in the science of jurisprudence. In this science, a group of hadiths are described as moral hadiths and are defined outside the circle of obligatory rulings of the Sharia; This means that by observing jurisprudence, a Muslim has fulfilled the necessary and sufficient condition, or the Muslim requisite! Just as in jurisprudence, keeping many promises is not necessary and breaking a promise is not considered forbidden except in a few cases, while in moral jurisprudence, observing jurisprudence alone is not sufficient.