According to the news portal of the Research Institute for Contemporary Jurisprudence Studies, the 228th scientific session of this institute, titled “The Nature, Dimensions, and Scope of the Jurisprudence of Culture,” was held on Thursday, October 9, 2025, organized by the Group for the Jurisprudence of Culture, Art, and Media. In this session, Hujjat al-Islam wa al-Muslimin Mohammad Tabatabaei, a member of the Group for the Jurisprudence of Society and Culture at the Center for the Jurisprudence of the Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them), delivered the presentation, and Hujjat al-Islam wa al-Muslimin Dr. Seyyed Mohammad Reza Asef Agah, a faculty member of the Research Institute for Islamic Sciences and Culture, was present as the critic. The session was chaired by Hujjat al-Islam wa al-Muslimin Mehdi Davoudabadi, secretary of the Research Department for the Jurisprudence of Society, Culture, and Health.
At the beginning of the session, Hujjat al-Islam wa al-Muslimin Davoudabadi, referring to the institute’s goals of producing theoretical literature in emerging jurisprudential fields, especially the jurisprudence of culture, art, and media, said: “The Research Institute for Contemporary Jurisprudence Studies has organized a series of scientific sessions to produce theoretical literature by addressing emerging jurisprudential issues, particularly in the fields of cultural jurisprudence, art jurisprudence, and media jurisprudence, so that professors and jurisprudential researchers can analyze and examine these matters.” He emphasized the transformation and dynamism of Shiite jurisprudence, stating: “Significant horizon-expanding efforts have been made in the Shiite jurisprudential system. Macro, systematic, and networked perspectives on jurisprudential issues have provided the ground for understanding and analyzing emerging issues in specialized fields.” The secretary of the Research Department for the Jurisprudence of Society, Culture, and Health added that today, within the framework of contemporary jurisprudence, numerous specialized jurisprudences have been raised that require elucidation of their foundations, nature, and scope.
In the continuation of the session, Hujjat al-Islam wa al-Muslimin Mohammad Tabatabaei began his presentation by examining the historical formation of the subject of cultural jurisprudence. He referred to the intellectual developments of the 2000s and the beginning of teaching advanced lessons on cultural jurisprudence by Ayatollah Araki in 2010, considering it a turning point in the growth of this field. Hujjat al-Islam wa al-Muslimin Tabatabaei, while emphasizing the substantive history of cultural jurisprudence, noted that this field requires structural and foundational redefinition for serious engagement with contemporary cultural issues.
The member of the Group for the Jurisprudence of Society and Culture at the Center for the Jurisprudence of the Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) analyzed the cultural transformations of the West, dividing them into three periods (the Industrial Revolution, the Sexual Revolution, and the Network Revolution), addressed the nature of cultural jurisprudence, and clarified its distinction from topical jurisprudence.
Hujjat al-Islam wa al-Muslimin Mohammad Tabatabaei emphasized that cultural jurisprudence, unlike topical jurisprudence which merely deals with a collection of rulings pertaining to specific cultural topics, has a macro and systematic approach that first analyzes the nature of culture and its religious foundations and then engages with the jurisprudential heritage.
He discussed the difference between fluid and static views of culture and, critiquing the fluid view, said: “If our jurisprudential view of culture is fluid, culture cannot accept jurisprudence at all and will be jurisprudence-hostile. It must be noted that culture is a conventional matter and should be defined based on the logic of conventionalities and by enumerating its formal and material elements.”
The member of the Group for the Jurisprudence of Society and Culture at the Center for the Jurisprudence of the Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) then presented the scientific framework of cultural jurisprudence. In this framework, four main sections are raised: understanding cultural matters, topicalization of cultural jurisprudence, methodology, and theoretical foundations, and finally, the topics and issues of cultural jurisprudence. He distinguished between “the jurisprudence of the cultural system” and “the jurisprudence of cultural issues” and considered this division necessary for designing a coherent system of sharia interventions in culture.
He continued by addressing one of the key issues of the session, namely the concept of “ma’ruf and munkar,” and said: “Ma’ruf and munkar are not merely obligations and prohibitions, but in Islamic society, they mean the custom of the sharia-adherent community, such that when an obligation becomes prevalent among Muslims, it becomes ma’ruf.”
Another axis emphasized in the presentation was government intervention in culture. Hujjat al-Islam wa al-Muslimin Mohammad Tabatabaei, referring to various global views on government involvement in the cultural domain, stated that clarifying the basis of this intervention is a jurisprudential duty that must be pursued in cultural jurisprudence.
In the final part of the presentation, he referred to ten important and interconnected cultural domains that, according to him, must be considered in cultural jurisprudence. These domains are: the jurisprudence of cultural identity, the jurisprudence of social relations, the jurisprudence of media and social communications, the jurisprudence of lifestyle and leisure choices, the jurisprudence of subcultures, the jurisprudence of intercultural communications, the jurisprudence of art, the jurisprudence of cultural organization and governance, the jurisprudence of judiciary and cultural rights, and the jurisprudence of cultural economy.
According to him, a topic-oriented approach to cultural jurisprudence cannot cover all these domains, and only a macro approach and a cultural jurisprudential approach can provide the necessary capacities for cultural analysis, intervention, and guidance.
Critiques by Hujjat al-Islam wa al-Muslimin Dr. Seyyed Mohammad Reza Asef Agah on the Cultural Jurisprudence Presentation
In the continuation of the session, Hujjat al-Islam wa al-Muslimin Dr. Seyyed Mohammad Reza Asef Agah, a faculty member of the Research Institute for Islamic Sciences and Culture, as the critic, analyzed and examined the content of the presentation. At the beginning of his remarks, while appreciating the session organizers and the presenter, he referred to three main axes of his critiques:
First, referring to the nature of cultural jurisprudence, he emphasized that the definition provided for culture requires revision and completion. In his view, in addition to the three components raised by the presenter (belief, value, and behavior), three other key elements must also be considered: symbol, norm, and technology.
The faculty member of the Research Institute for Islamic Sciences and Culture, emphasizing that these elements play a prominent role in later definitions of culture, especially in anthropology and sociology, added: By considering these elements, the scope of cultural jurisprudence will expand, and domains such as media jurisprudence, cyberspace jurisprudence, and technology jurisprudence can be defined under it.
The second axis of his critique was dedicated to demarcating boundaries among emerging jurisprudences. Referring to some overlaps between cultural jurisprudence, social jurisprudence, ethical jurisprudence, and political jurisprudence, he emphasized the necessity of clear distinction among these branches. According to him, one of the existing harms is the conflation of domains; such that issues like enjoining good and forbidding wrong, which are more appropriately raised in the domains of governance jurisprudence or ethical jurisprudence, should not be directly placed under cultural jurisprudence unless a precise integrative approach is adopted.
The third critique concerned the lack of a clear criterion in topicalizing the structure of cultural jurisprudence. Asef Agah, posing the question “What is the criterion for dividing cultural jurisprudence?”, asked the presenter to explicitly state the basis of his categorization. Referring to various historical divisions of jurisprudence, including categorizations based on human relations with God, self, others, and nature, he added: Without determining a clear index for distinction, it is not possible to evaluate the proposed structure. He also, referring to the presenter’s division of cultural jurisprudence into “the jurisprudence of the cultural system” and “the jurisprudence of cultural issues,” asked whether this division is based on the obligated parties (natural and legal persons) or the type of topics. He criticized the lack of transparency in distinguishing these two domains and emphasized that without precise elucidation, this division can lead to ambiguity and overlap.
Hujjat al-Islam wa al-Muslimin Dr. Seyyed Mohammad Reza Asef Agah called for precise elucidation of the cultural domains mentioned in the jurisprudence of cultural issues. The faculty member of the Research Institute for Islamic Sciences and Culture critiqued the discussions presented on cultural jurisprudence. Referring to the definition provided for culture, he emphasized that in addition to components such as belief, value, and behavior, important elements like symbol, norm, and technology must also be considered so that the scope of cultural jurisprudence expands and domains such as media jurisprudence and cyberspace can be defined within it.
He also emphasized the necessity of clear boundary-setting between cultural jurisprudence and other emerging jurisprudences such as social, ethical, and political jurisprudence, warning that the intermixing of these domains can lead to conceptual confusion. Asef Agah continued by criticizing the absence of a clear criterion in topicalizing cultural jurisprudence and called for elucidating the basis of the categorizations raised in the presentation.
Dr. Asef Agah, referring to the distinction between “the jurisprudence of the cultural system” and “the jurisprudence of cultural issues,” considered this relationship akin to that between theory and application and clarified: “Cultural jurisprudence, like systemic jurisprudence or governance jurisprudence, is a conceptual framework that can reorganize existing jurisprudential structures; however, this approach must be placed in its position based on coherent theories and precise methodology.”
The faculty member of the Research Institute for Islamic Sciences and Culture, at the end, while emphasizing the necessity of distinguishing between ethical rulings and cultural rulings, also examined the concept of “ma’ruf and munkar” and said: “What is meant by ma’ruf is not merely a good deed in the view of an individual or society, but that which is recognized as a sharia obligation or recommended act in the custom of the sharia-adherent community and institutionalized in Islamic society.”
Emphasizing the necessity of an “approaches-oriented view” in contemporary jurisprudence, he said: Cultural jurisprudence must be seen as a comprehensive approach that reinterprets all chapters of jurisprudence from purity to diyah in the light of culture, not merely limited to specific topics. According to him, just as governance jurisprudence or educational jurisprudence have a layered view of jurisprudence, cultural jurisprudence must also be redefined from this perspective.
In summarizing this section, Hujjat al-Islam wa al-Muslimin Asef Agah stated that cultural jurisprudence must be understood not merely as a topic-oriented branch, but as a macro approach among contemporary jurisprudences. He added: “Cultural jurisprudence, like systemic jurisprudence or governance jurisprudence, is a conceptual framework that can reorganize existing jurisprudential structures. However, this approach has no meaning in a vacuum; rather, it must be integrated into the overall structure of jurisprudence based on coherent jurisprudential theories and relying on precise methodology.”
The topics raised in this session demonstrated that cultural jurisprudence is not merely a topical branch, but a comprehensive approach that can reinterpret various chapters of jurisprudence from a cultural perspective. Focus on systematic theorization, precise distinction from other jurisprudential branches, and attention to the custom of the sharia-adherent community as the basis for “ma’ruf and munkar” were among the prominent points of this discussion. Given the complexity of contemporary cultural issues, such sessions are an essential step for developing specialized jurisprudences and responding to the cultural needs of the Islamic society.