Traditional Jurisprudence, While Preserving Its Principles and Foundations, Has the Capacity to Adapt to New Conditions and Does Not Need to Be Replaced by a “New Jurisprudence”

Note: Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimin Mohammad Hadi Fazel Baboli is a professor of advanced courses at the Qom Seminary and a member of the Academic Council of the “Jurisprudence of Society, Ethics, and Education” group at the Research Institute for Contemporary Jurisprudential Studies. On the occasion of the Supreme Leader’s message to the centennial conference of the Qom Seminary, we discussed with him the topic of contemporary jurisprudence and its educational, social, and interdisciplinary dimensions. In addition to years of teaching and research in jurisprudence, he has consistently been involved in and consulted on educational management. The full text of the exclusive interview with Contemporary Jurisprudence with this Qom Seminary professor is as follows:

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Can traditional jurisprudence alone sufficiently address the evolving needs of today’s society? What mechanisms are proposed to ensure the dynamism of jurisprudence in confronting emerging issues?

Fazel: The question of the necessity of aligning jurisprudence with current developments is an obvious one, with a clear answer: Yes, jurisprudence must address the evolving needs of society. Islam, with its claim of universality and temporal and spatial comprehensiveness, asserts that it can cover all individual and social needs of humanity from the beginning to the end of life and in all societies until the Day of Judgment. It is the responsibility of jurists to derive appropriate responses by deducing rulings from religious sources. Some jurists believe that Islam only responds to questions that arise, while others maintain that Islam possesses specific systems in areas such as economics, politics, law, and more, and can provide a comprehensive program. In any case, there is disagreement on these foundations, but what is unanimously agreed upon is the necessity for jurisprudence to address contemporary needs.

Since the formation of Shia jurisprudence, based on the recommendation of the Imams (AS) stating, “It is upon us to provide the principles, and upon you to derive the branches,” jurists have been tasked with deducing rulings for new issues. This process continues to this day, and jurisprudence must be able to keep pace with contemporary developments. Of course, some rulings, such as those related to worship and the general principles of transactions (e.g., buying and selling, marriage, wills, etc.), remain fixed. However, Islam also possesses the capacity to derive new responses for emerging issues.

Is Traditional Jurisprudence Alone Sufficient?

The response to this question is twofold:

From the Perspective of the Inherent Capacity of Traditional Jurisprudence:
If the question is whether traditional jurisprudence has the ability to address today’s needs or whether it should be abandoned, the answer is affirmative. Traditional jurisprudence, while preserving its principles and foundations, has the capacity to adapt to new conditions and does not need to be replaced by a “new jurisprudence.”

From the Perspective of Methodology and Subject Identification:
If the question is whether it is possible to address contemporary needs solely with the traditional approach, without any changes in methods or attention to new subject matters, the answer is negative. Traditional jurisprudence requires enhancement in two areas:

Methodology: Developing the principles of inference and strengthening the ability to interpret religious sources.
Subject Identification: Precisely identifying new issues in various fields (e.g., medicine, arts, international relations, etc.) before they become social challenges.

Mechanisms for the Dynamism of Jurisprudence

To address evolving needs, the following steps are necessary:

Strengthening the connection between jurists and specialized centers in various fields (e.g., economics, medicine, technology, etc.).
Training seminarians and jurists in specialized disciplines to enable them to accurately analyze complex issues.
If jurisprudence is viewed as systematic, jurists must, in addition to deducing specific rulings, design comprehensive systems (e.g., economic systems, governance systems, etc.), which requires in-depth study of contemporary sciences.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Should contemporary jurisprudence be included as an independent discipline in the seminary curriculum, or should it be addressed as supplementary topics within traditional jurisprudential courses?

Fazel: In recent years, we have witnessed significant attention to contemporary jurisprudence in seminaries. This transformation has occurred in various dimensions, including methodology, textbooks, and educational topics. In fact, it can be said that progress in this area has been more noticeable than in other fields.

The question is whether contemporary jurisprudence should be included as an independent discipline in the seminary curriculum or addressed as supplementary topics within traditional courses. It seems that both approaches are viable:

Independent Discipline: In today’s academic systems, methodologies and scientific approaches have themselves become independent disciplines. In the future, contemporary jurisprudence may also be defined as an independent discipline focused on the methods of deducing rulings for emerging issues.

Supplementary Topics: Currently, the prevailing approach is to incorporate contemporary jurisprudence as supplementary topics within traditional courses. This approach has been well-received by professors and scholars in the seminary and appears sufficient to address current needs.

After providing seminarians with general education in the foundational principles of jurisprudence, it is necessary, in more specialized stages, for each discipline (e.g., economic jurisprudence, medical jurisprudence, or governance jurisprudence) to independently address contemporary issues. This approach enables specialists in each field to acquire the ability to deduce rulings for emerging issues.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Can a focus on contemporary jurisprudence attract the attention of the younger generation and increase the social acceptance of seminaries?

Fazel: Seminaries, to maintain their academic standing and engage effectively with other academic environments, must inevitably address emerging and contemporary issues. This approach not only responds to societal needs but also enhances the academic credibility of seminaries. Merely repeating past discussions without connecting to contemporary issues, while potentially producing valuable scholarly contributions, will not lead to genuine growth and advancement.

Focusing on contemporary jurisprudence undoubtedly has an impact on attracting the attention of the younger generation and increasing the social acceptance of seminaries. If seminaries only address issues that lack practical relevance today or have limited applicability, they will gradually lose their social standing. The younger generation expects answers to the questions of the current era. Issues such as cryptocurrency transactions, the metaverse, or pyramid schemes require well-reasoned jurisprudential responses that can convince religiously inclined youth.

In this regard, two categories of issues must be considered:

Fixed matters, such as worship-related rulings (prayer, pilgrimage, zakat), whose principles are immutable.
Variable social matters that require dynamic ijtihad and new responses.

Although seminaries are not primarily focused on gaining social popularity, and their fundamental duty is to discover divine rulings, addressing the real needs of society naturally increases public trust. When scholars and the general public feel that their everyday concerns are addressed with well-reasoned religious responses, their trust in the institution of the seminary gradually increases. This trust arises not from seeking approval but from properly fulfilling scholarly responsibilities.

The duty of the seminary is not only to discover divine rulings but also to present them in a way that is comprehensible and applicable to contemporary society. This requires:

Precise identification of new issues.
Providing well-reasoned and logical responses.
Expressing rulings in a language understandable to the public.
Preserving fixed religious principles while addressing evolving needs.

This approach not only elevates the academic standing of seminaries but also establishes Shia jurisprudence as a dynamic and effective system for addressing societal issues.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What are the most significant emerging jurisprudential issues that require research and the presentation of jurisprudential opinions? (e.g., artificial intelligence, organ transplantation, cryptocurrencies)

Fazel: In the present era, we are faced with numerous issues that require jurisprudential responses:

In Medicine: Organ transplantation and related issues, prenatal screening, precise diagnoses through advanced imaging, and issues related to autopsy.
In Economics: Cryptocurrencies, new types of companies (over 200 types), futures trading and complex contracts, and pyramid schemes.
In Psychology and Law: The responsibility of individuals with mental disorders and criteria for mental health in significant responsibilities.
In Arts: Modern arts such as contemporary sculpture and works produced by artificial intelligence.
In Consumer Issues: New standards for halal products and the use of new materials in pharmaceuticals.
In Astronomy: Sighting the crescent moon with advanced tools.

These issues are examples of matters that contemporary jurisprudence must address. Every jurist, when dealing with these issues, must provide appropriate responses using religious sources and jurisprudential principles. This is precisely the task of dynamic jurisprudence to address societal needs.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Can current seminary professors, proficient in traditional jurisprudence, teach contemporary jurisprudence, or is there a need to train new forces with dual expertise (jurisprudence and contemporary sciences)?

Fazel: The issue of training professors for contemporary jurisprudence requires a precise and comprehensive approach. Current seminary professors proficient in traditional jurisprudence can engage in teaching contemporary jurisprudence, provided they adhere to the principles and methods of inference while becoming familiar with new issues in various fields.

To achieve this goal, young and talented professors should be selected and systematically prepared to address emerging issues. This preparation includes specialized training in subject identification, studying contemporary scientific texts, and developing appropriate educational resources. Additionally, there should be a division of labor among professors based on their interests and talents.

The most significant challenge in this process is the time-intensive nature of training professors and the need for coordination among various seminary institutions. However, rather than training entirely new forces who may lack proficiency in traditional jurisprudential principles, it is preferable to empower existing professors with supplementary training.

This approach has two major advantages: First, it prevents methodological deviations, and second, it addresses the contemporary needs of society. Of course, this requires patience, planning, and the provision of sufficient educational resources. Ultimately, this approach can equip Shia jurisprudence to address new issues while preserving its authenticity.