Note: What does ethical jurisprudence mean? Does it mean ethicizing the knowledge of jurisprudence or jurisprudentializing the knowledge of ethics, or something other than these two? Ayatollah Mohammad Andalib Hamedani believes we must pursue jurisprudentializing the knowledge of ethics; because ethics without jurisprudence lacks executive guarantee; and also this task is much easier than ethicizing the knowledge of jurisprudence. The long-time professor of advanced lessons in jurisprudence and principles at the Qom Seminary, of course, also emphasizes the necessity of raising ethical discussions in the knowledge of jurisprudence. The full text of the exclusive interview of Contemporary Fiqh with a member of the Supreme Scientific Council of the Institute for Contemporary Fiqh Studies on “ethical jurisprudence” is presented for your perusal:
Contemporary Fiqh: What is meant by ethical jurisprudence? What is its difference from “ethical jurisprudence” and similar titles?
Andalib: I will state my own understanding. We need a specialization between the two knowledges of jurisprudence and ethics, and this specialized knowledge can be named ethical jurisprudence. Of course, the name does not have much relevance; what is important is that ethical jurisprudence makes the knowledge of jurisprudence ethical and the knowledge of ethics jurisprudential. What I mean by ethical jurisprudence is a jurisprudence that, in addition to texts and evidences, also considers the result of the fatwa—whether the result that I, as the jurist, obtain is compatible with ethical standards or not? One cannot suffice with mere validity of the document or mere absoluteness and generality. The knowledge of ethical jurisprudence must ethicize jurisprudence and establish a connection between rulings; especially the connection between rulings and sublime goals such as worship, justice, and human dignity, which we have raised in our discussions. The specialized field of ethical jurisprudence must emphasize this point that we have some instructions that have an internal aspect among believers and Muslims and some trans-religious aspects. From all verses and narrations related to people, points can be derived; such as: “Speak to people kindly” (Baqarah 83) and “Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction” (Nahl 125), which mean inviting people and the public. Or the noble verse that states: “Let not the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness” (Ma’idah 8); meaning even deal with the enemy with justice and observe ethics in war. Imam Sadiq, peace be upon him, also states: “Whoever deals with people without oppressing them, speaks to them without lying to them, and promises them without breaching, is among those whose backbiting is forbidden, whose chivalry is complete, whose justice is manifest, and whose brotherhood is obligatory.”
In any case, narrations related to people, such as fairness toward people, affection toward people, and so on, must be raised in jurisprudence. This is the task of ethical jurisprudence in its first dimension, which is ethical jurisprudence; but in the second dimension, which is jurisprudential ethics, I believe we must emphasize this point that although ethics has a rational and reasonable root, it must be intertwined with revelatory teachings, and these must be derived from jurisprudence, entering the issues of ethical jurisprudence with the same frameworks of principles of jurisprudence. For example, when we want to discuss breach of promise, we have a jurisprudential perspective and an ethical perspective. In my view, a purely ethical view also lacks an executive factor. What should be done? Can we propose here that although breach of promise has no punishment, based on the fact that our actions will be embodied on the Day of Judgment, it will be shown to the person as an ugly face on the Day of Judgment, or that we say breach of promise causes departure from justice so that people move toward fulfilling their promises?
I also emphasize another point that in jurisprudential books, one should not only refer to recommended devotional acts; rather, suppressing anger, accepting excuses, not harboring hatred and grudge, not engaging in disputation must also be included in jurisprudential treatises.
Contemporary Fiqh: What is the scope of ethical jurisprudence? In other words, what main chapters and issues are defined under it?
Andalib: Based on the response to the first question, the answer to this question has also been given. The most important task we must perform is first to determine the position of the human being both in jurisprudence and in ethics. We must specify the position of the human being with a jurisprudential view and precise considerations. Until the position of the human being is clarified from the perspective of religious teachings, ethical jurisprudence will not reach anywhere. A renewed look must be taken at the discussion of justice in various aspects, whether justice that indicates spiritual balance of the human being or justice in family and society. The chapters on justice and dignity must be examined with a precise view.
Contemporary Fiqh: What is the difference between ethical jurisprudence and the knowledge of ethics?
Andalib: The knowledge of ethics is more rational and reasonable. The same thing that its foundation was also in Greece and has been blended by our great scholars with verses of the Quran and narrations of the Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them; but this is not sufficient, and as I stated, the view must be a jurisprudential view and an ethical view toward jurisprudence. The knowledge of ethics alone is not beneficial.
Contemporary Fiqh: What are the challenges of forming the chapter of ethical jurisprudence and researching it?
Andalib: When we raise some issues, they immediately say it is ethical. One must ask what is meant by ethical? Does it mean recommended acts? Are recommended acts not in jurisprudential rulings? If by ethical it means that it relates to inner aspects not to outer limbs, we ask: Should jurisprudence not deal with people’s inner aspects and hearts? The fact that very often it is said that such an issue is ethical, the intent must be clarified. In my view, the fundamental challenge is that we must ethicize jurisprudence, which is very difficult and time-consuming. Jurisprudentializing ethics may be easier and require less effort. Of course, the discussion on this matter is extensive, which should be raised in its place.