Note

Although media jurisprudence has gained attention as one of the contemporary jurisprudential fields in recent years, with several advanced courses and numerous writings dedicated to it, it has rarely been discussed from a methodological and foundational perspective. Dr. Abbas Meqdadi Davoudi, a researcher of media jurisprudence, in this exclusive note, elaborates on the differences between traditional and modern approaches to media jurisprudence and outlines the requirements of each.

Undoubtedly, for any form of discovery and inference, reliance must be placed on two categories of evidence: ijtihadi (deductive) and faqahati (jurisprudential). Among the challenges and roots of discrepancies in the methodology of conventional jurisprudence versus specialized jurisprudence are errors in identifying the subject, reliance on custom, accumulation of conjectures, incorrect application of generalities and absolutes, deficiencies in discerning benefits and harms on one hand, and contradictions, imposing on Sharia, and falling into the trap of contemporaneity on the other.

System-Oriented Approach

The system-oriented approach is the primary distinction between specialized jurisprudence and conventional jurisprudence. Conventional jurisprudence is subject-oriented, whereas specialized jurisprudence is system-oriented, addressing issues by clarifying the subject, determining the jurisprudential position, and identifying the Sharia stance at a macro level. The reason for the emergence of this approach in traditional jurisprudence lies in the definition of the jurisprudential system and its related rulings. The attachment of Sharia rulings to the actions of individuals has made the approach of traditional jurisprudence partial and micro-focused. However, in the macro-jurisprudential system, or in other words, the system-oriented jurisprudential approach, a ruling is defined differently. The definition of a ruling in system-oriented jurisprudence is: “A Sharia ruling is the legislation issued by Almighty God to regulate human life” (Sadr, 1425: p. 99). In other words, it is “the decree issued by the Lawgiver to organize human life.” Since human life encompasses various dimensions, such as economic, social, and communicative aspects, the concept of life systems arises. The jurisprudence of propagation (fiqh al-tabligh) should be pursued within the framework of the communicative systems of human life.

The transformation in the methodology of specialized jurisprudence requires a shift from the methodology of conventional micro-ijtihad to macro-ijtihad. Martyr Sadr can be regarded as the pioneer of this approach in the contemporary era. It appears that Martyr Sadr’s innovation in the methodology of thematic inquiry laid the foundation for his theoretical jurisprudence (fiqh al-nazariyya). He sought to apply the methodology of theoretical jurisprudence in the field of economic jurisprudence to derive certain macro-economic theories.

It should be noted that Martyr Sadr’s theoretical jurisprudence aims to deduce a macro perspective from religious teachings and texts. This approach entails a specific methodology that can enhance religious knowledge. The application of Martyr Sadr’s theoretical jurisprudence can offer two significant efficiencies:

a) Enhancing the “process of deducing Sharia rulings” through “achieving macro perspectives”;

b) Enhancing “political and guardianship-based management.”

Difference in Objective

The second distinction between the methodology of conventional jurisprudence and specialized jurisprudence lies in their objectives. Conventional jurisprudence is title-oriented and seeks to establish validity, whereas theoretical jurisprudence is goal-oriented, function-driven, and aims to uncover the general guidelines governing Sharia rulings. This enables it to address emerging media-related issues by relying on these general guidelines, expanding or restricting evidence, and referencing the generalities and absolutes of Sharia. For example, the transmission of religious messages through text-message contests promoted in the media, with prizes awarded by lottery, or participation in quiz competitions, selection stages, and advancing to live television contests—does this constitute gambling or media betting? Addressing this question requires examining the objectives of both the organizers and participants: whether their intent is to promote religious content through entertaining and socially uplifting programs or to create a financial pyramid to generate income while distributing minimal prizes in return. Thus, the difference in objectives plays a significant role in the rulings of religious propagation jurisprudence through media productions.

Difference in Methodology

By difference in methodology, it is not meant that an independent set of jurisprudential principles or ijtihadi system is required. Rather, the existing method of Jowahiri ijtihad should be refined. One aspect of this refinement is the transition from a subject-oriented scale to a system-oriented level. Accordingly, steps are proposed that reflect this refinement in the inference process. One of the areas requiring methodological refinement is subject identification. The objective of micro-jurisprudence is to deduce rulings based on primary titles and external realities. Conventional jurisprudence primarily analyzes the subject based on primary titles, considers examining the external reality of the subject outside the scope of jurisprudence, and does not apply rulings to external realities. It also generally delegates the restriction of subjects—except for Sharia-specific subjects—to general custom.

However, in specialized jurisprudence, such as media jurisprudence, the subjects of rulings, their instances, and the application of subject titles to external realities must be examined. Subsequently, a network of issues should be identified, and the system related to that subject—for instance, the media system—should be matrixed with other systems before deducing the ruling. The deduction of rulings for these subjects must consider social, security, political, international, and other consequences. Without such consideration, implementing the ruling may lead to undesirable outcomes. Hence, these various dimensions cannot be delegated to custom; rather, they require the expert perspective of specialists. In emerging issues, such as those in the media, some subjects are specifically excluded from the generalities and absolutes of primary title evidence, while others are entirely outside their scope. In other words, some of these issues must fundamentally be examined under secondary titles or governmental rulings.

Reference: Sadr, Sayyid Mohammad Baqir, Al-Ma‘alim al-Jadida lil-Usul, Qom, World Conference for the Martyr Imam Sadr, 1425.

[1] Ijtihadi evidence includes generalities and absolutes, essentials of Sharia, rational judgment, the practice of rational people, jurisprudential rules, refinement of reasoning, analogy with stated causes, priority-based analogy, principles of jurisprudence, objectives of Sharia, negation of particularity, custom, and expediency. Faqahati evidence includes continuity (istishab), exemption (bara’a), choice (takhyir), and precaution (ihtiyat).