In a certain period, facts could be proven by oaths; but this is not the case now, and there are better ways to discover the facts before the judge. Of course, these methods must be capable of being cited and attributed, and not be an example of backbiting and, so to speak, not seeking to discover the facts, God willing. What we need today is a method that can be understood and attributed by everyone and can reveal the facts to the judge in a close and accurate manner.

Reference

Teacher Sayyid Alireza Husayni has been involved in judicial matters for several years. In addition to teaching judicial jurisprudence for many years, he has been engaged in research at the Judiciary Research Center for several years. We talked to him about the topics and network of judicial jurisprudence issues. In his opinion, the most important step in current judicial jurisprudence is to separate criminal from civil matters, similar to the science of law. The details of the exclusive conversation on contemporary jurisprudence with this researcher at the Judiciary Research Center are as follows:

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What is judicial jurisprudence? What is its difference from similar jurisprudence chapters such as “jurisprudence of criminal law”, “jurisprudence of personal circumstances” and “jurisprudence of private rights”?

 

Mr. Sadr Husayni: Judicial jurisprudence in the conventional and familiar books of jurists deals with the chapter on hostility between disputants; that is, the work of judicial jurisprudence is the chapter on hostility and arbitration. Its difference from other branches of jurisprudence such as criminal jurisprudence, personal jurisprudence, and private jurisprudence is that in judicial jurisprudence, evidence is discussed in a comprehensive manner, while in branches of jurisprudence such as criminal jurisprudence, personal jurisprudence, and private law, evidentiary issues are discussed. In view of this, one of the important issues that must be carefully considered in the writing of modern jurisprudence books is that we must completely separate evidentiary issues from affirmative issues, or in other words, issues of evidence to prove general laws in specific instances, and evidentiary issues.

In judicial jurisprudence, the discussion of the trial process and procedural jurisprudence is raised, but in jurisprudence and private law and criminal jurisprudence and law, we discuss evidentiary issues.

In ancient jurisprudence books, we see this distinction less often. For instance, in the Book of Leases and the Book of al-Hudud (Limitations), when there is a discussion of proof, the discussion of proof is also raised; whereas now it’s in the book of law and the topics of procedural law, the topics of proof are completely separate from the topics of proof. Jurisprudence should be the same. As a result, specifically, the discussion of the jurisprudence of personal status and the jurisprudence of private rights is a discussion of proof, while the discussion in the jurisprudence of judgment is a discussion of proof evidence.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What methods are there to divide the topics of the jurisprudence of judgment, and which one is more efficient?

Mr. Sadr Husayni: In order to divide the topics of the jurisprudence of judgment efficiently, we must separate civil and private topics from criminal topics, based on ijtihad and jurisprudential evidence. Just as we have separated civil and criminal procedures in the law and procedural law, we must do the same in jurisprudence; That is, we have a criminal jurisprudence and a civil jurisprudence. Of course, in jurisprudence, most of the discussions are about criminal issues and there are few civil issues; but wherever these issues exist, a distinction must be made between their criminal and civil dimensions and discussed separately.

 

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What are the headings of Jurisprudence?

Mr. Sadr Husayni: Jurisprudence includes positive evidence, discussions on the chapter on hostility, the qualities of the judge, the manners and quality of the trial, and the rulings of arbitration. Specifically, the discussions of Jurisprudence are about the trial and the judge; that is, about arbitration and the arbitrator. The discussions of arbitration include the quality of the trial and the rulings of the arbitrator, such as the qualities of the judge.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What are the most important issues in each heading of Jurisprudence?

Mr. Sadr Husayni: One of the most important issues in jurisprudence is discovering ways that will quickly and accurately lead us to the truth. In order to have good jurisprudence and good criminal and civil jurisprudence, we must discover evidence that will quickly and accurately lead us to the truth. In a certain period, it was possible to prove the truth by swearing; but this is not the case now, and there are better ways to discover the truth before the judge. Of course, these ways must be capable of being cited and attributed, and not be an example of backbiting and, so to speak, not seeking to discover the truth, God willing. What we need today is ways that are understandable and attributable to everyone and can reveal the truth to the judge in a close and accurate manner.

One of the first things that must be done to follow this path is to separate criminal and civil jurisprudence issues in jurisprudence. Eliminating the entanglement and confusion of these issues will make the path to judgment better and more accurate, although other steps must be taken after that.