Note: Subject identification, particularly in emerging issues, presents new challenges for jurists. On one hand, it is impossible for a single individual to fully comprehend all new subjects, given their diversity and complexity. On the other hand, relying on experts has left a bitter experience of large companies exploiting some jurists. Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Hossein Adabi Charami, a professor of advanced levels at the Mashhad Seminary and head of the Al-e Muhammad (peace be upon him) Virtual School, discusses lesser-known aspects of the challenges of subject identification in this exclusive article:

What requires careful examination in contemporary jurisprudence is the current state of subject-forming and issue-creating factors, followed by the process of their development and expansion. The function of jurisprudence in human life depends on the subjects and issues generated within that life. The broader the scope of these subjects, the wider the field of jurisprudence’s activity becomes. Subject identification in contemporary jurisprudence is tied to the role of jurisprudence in modern life. Depending on whether we view jurisprudence as “managing contemporary human life to achieve salvation” or merely as “providing the minimum obligations for individuals,” the subjects generated within the framework of contemporary jurisprudence will differ.

Subject identification in contemporary jurisprudence can be examined through two approaches. The first is a passive approach, meaning that jurisprudence reacts to what transpires in life, determining its interaction and presence in life as issues and subjects for issuing rulings. In this approach, jurisprudence adopts a defensive stance, waiting for contemporary human life to encounter issues in its trajectory and present them to jurisprudence for response. In this approach, changes in lifestyle and lifestyle elements lead to the emergence of new issues and subjects. Lifestyle is shaped by values derived from beliefs and convictions, which are sometimes religious and sometimes customary. The less control religion has over human life, the more secularized individuals become, resulting in changes to the subjects and issues for which jurisprudence has not yet provided answers. Sometimes, habits, behaviors, and individual or social actions do not change, but their tools undergo transformation, which itself creates emerging jurisprudential issues. For example, human communication with others, as a social behavior, existed in the past and continues today through language, unchanged in essence. However, communication tools, such as voice communication via telephone or visual communication through social media and devices with video call technology, have changed. Consequently, the requirements introduced by these tools give rise to new jurisprudential subjects.

Sometimes, a shift from individual and real personality to organizational and legal personality leads to new issues. These organizations and institutions can be envisioned in the form of relationships between two intra-governmental organizations, two international organizations, or global entities.

This approach has several flaws. First, responses will be delayed, causing jurisprudence to lag behind a rapidly transforming society. In this approach, jurisprudence will continue to exist but, due to falling behind society, will gradually retreat from maximum presence to minimal presence, potentially leading to isolation where little more than a hollow shell remains. The alternative is an active approach, meaning that jurisprudence, as a guide for managing lifestyle from cradle to grave, should be able to reproduce individual and social life systems in a way that, despite updating contemporary lifestyles, responds to their issues based on religious sources and fundamental jurisprudential principles. Jurisprudence must address these subjects and issues with its foundational principles without undergoing a change in essence, becoming secularized, or abandoning its foundations. In other words, the concern of some jurists about legitimizing certain prohibitions or prohibiting certain permissible acts under the pretext of jurisprudential evolution and addressing issues should not occur, as the primary basis for such actions, which could lead to a change in the essence of jurisprudence, lies in subject identification and the perspective on contemporary human life. In this approach, jurisprudence moves beyond identifying current subjects to identifying future subjects, presenting a new challenge for contemporary jurisprudence, which can be categorized and explained in four branches:

First, jurists must inevitably move beyond individual jurisprudence—not just to social jurisprudence at minimal or moderate levels, but to social jurisprudence with maximum capacity, namely civilizational jurisprudence, which produces and oversees the systemization of the global Islamic order.

Second, for this extensive transformation, jurists will be compelled to revisit the responses of jurisprudence to old issues, as these issues have received answers rooted in individual jurisprudence. In the new expanded scope, individual jurisprudential responses cannot achieve civilizational goals.

The third branch involves a change in methodology. Jurists must address changes in subject identification or revisit past subjects based on forward-looking methods aligned with a civilizational perspective, which implies a transformation in the methods of deducing rulings. The current methods of deducing rulings focus on determining individual obligations without considering social conditions on the scale of a modern Islamic civilization. Thus, they lack the capacity to address civilizational jurisprudential issues. Consequently, in addition to needing new methods for deducing rulings, revising existing jurisprudential principles, and defining new jurisprudential principles suited to the scope of needs, there will also be a need for new principles of jurisprudence. Furthermore, all auxiliary sciences involved in deducing religious rulings, such as hadith sciences, Quranic sciences, and others, will require transformation and reevaluation.

The fourth branch is that a forward-looking perspective in jurisprudence necessitates subject creation, not merely subject identification. Subject creation occurs when a jurist plays a significant role in shaping the future of the Islamic system. Thus, while envisioning the political, economic, cultural, social, scientific, ethical, and other dimensions of Islamic society, the jurist must also consider the jurisprudential relationships between these systems and the individuals within them, creating subjects and issues and then addressing them.

If a transformation in jurisprudential methods and approaches is expected, new styles of jurisprudence will undoubtedly require new methods of subject and issue identification. The significant challenge in this regard is subject and issue creation. The inclination to use generalities and absolutes for strategizing, paying special attention to rational conventions and practices, and focusing on interdisciplinary fields between jurisprudence and other sciences for subject identification and resolving jurisprudential issues will be anticipated.

One of the existing challenges in this area is the inability of current methods to address new subjects. Currently, jurists provide general rulings in response to new issues without engaging in subject identification or applying jurisprudence to subjects, leaving this task to the obligated individual. This leads to disillusionment among individuals regarding jurisprudence’s responsiveness and causes their jurisprudential performance to be based on superficial interpretations of subject identification and duty fulfillment. Some jurists emphasize the necessity of engaging in subject identification under titles such as consulting experts. In recent years, this method has led to bitter experiences, including instances where large entities exploited jurists lacking sufficient expertise in the subject matter to achieve their own objectives. Consequently, this method has proven ineffective, and a new approach to subject identification in contemporary jurisprudence must be developed. This approach should allow specialists in various fields to contribute to jurisprudential subject identification while maintaining oversight to prevent them from falling prey to deceptive schemes or exploitation by opportunistic individuals.