Note: In the scientific seminar on “Women’s Marja‘iyyah: Dimensions and Challenges,” Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Dr. Mahdi Sajjadi-Amin, explaining his view on the non-guardianship nature of ijtihad, considered the negation of guardianship from women as the removal of responsibility, not the denial of a right. In contrast, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Fazel Baboli emphasized the need for historical and social re-reading of jurisprudential evidence and described marja‘iyyah as a scholarly, not guardianship, status. Additionally, Dr. Toufiqi, critiquing some traditional foundations, proposed redefining the institution of marja‘iyyah in a council-based and specialized manner.

According to the information base of the Research Institute of Contemporary Jurisprudence Studies, the 234th scientific seminar of the Women and Family Jurisprudence Group at the Research Institute of Contemporary Jurisprudence Studies, in collaboration with the Vice Presidency for Women and Family Affairs and the Contemporary Religious Thought Research Institute, was held on Monday, 27 October 2025, coinciding with the blessed birth anniversary of Hazrat Zainab (peace be upon her), under the title “Women’s Marja‘iyyah: Dimensions and Challenges.” In this seminar, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Dr. Mahdi Sajjadi-Amin, a faculty member of the Jurisprudence and Law Group at the Women and Family Research Institute, served as the presenter, and Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mohammad Hadi Fazel Baboli, a member of the Scientific Council of the Women and Family Jurisprudence Group at the Research Institute of Contemporary Jurisprudence Studies, participated as the critic. The scientific moderator of the seminar was Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Dr. Mahdi Sa‘adati-Nasab.

At the beginning of the seminar, Dr. Sa‘adati-Nasab, while welcoming the attendees and virtual participants, emphasized that the focus of this seminar is examining the jurisprudential dimensions of women’s marja‘iyyah and clarifying its guardianship or non-guardianship nature.

Continuing the seminar, Dr. Sajjadi-Amin began his presentation by referring to his recent book titled Women, Ifta’, and Marja‘iyyah, stating that the goal of the research is to distinguish between the various aspects of a marja‘ taqlid and examine the role of gender in each of them. He emphasized that in the principle of ijtihad and ifta’, gender plays no role, and women can attain the degree of ijtihad and issue fatwas.

A faculty member of the Jurisprudence and Law Group at the Women and Family Research Institute added: “Ijtihad is a scholarly process and is not gender-specific. Anyone, whether man or woman, can, by completing the scholarly stages, attain the ability to derive and discover divine rulings from the sources.”

According to him, the main difference emerges when the discussion turns to the guardianship aspects of the faqih; that is, those authorities that involve intervention in the affairs of others. Dr. Sajjadi-Amin explained that in Shiite jurisprudence, the default principle is the absence of guardianship of any person over another, and guardianship of one over another can only be proven with religious evidence.

This researcher, in explaining his view, stated that in Quranic and narrative examinations, there is no clear evidence proving guardianship aspects for women, and titles such as “fuqaha” and “hukkam” in religious texts at least have contextual indicators suggesting they refer to men. He said: “In guardianship aspects, evidence indicates that gender is valid; that is, this status is proven for men. Therefore, a distinction must be made between the guardianship and non-guardianship aspects of a marja‘ taqlid.”

Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Sajjadi-Amin then analyzed the philosophy of this jurisprudential ruling and emphasized that negating guardianship from women does not mean denying a right but removing a responsibility. He explained that Islamic jurisprudence considers the guardianship status as a duty and obligation, not a privilege or social right.

In part of his remarks, referring to narrative foundations, he added: “When jurisprudence states that guardianship aspects are not proven for women, it means women are not obligated to handle the affairs of others. This is not denying a right but a form of leniency and removal of obligation, rooted in the system of different divine responsibilities.”

Dr. Sajjadi-Amin continued by referring to the special position of women in the system of creation and the responsibility of childbearing, explaining that the main reason for guardianship differences between men and women is jurisprudence’s view of women’s creational responsibilities. He said: “God has appointed women to a matter that aligns with His creativity and the purpose of creation; that is, childbearing and human upbringing. Since this responsibility is irreplaceable, other duties that would distract a woman’s mind and body from it have been removed from her.”

This researcher, citing the advice of Amir al-Mu’minin (peace be upon him) to Muhammad ibn Hanafiyyah that “if you can avoid making a woman responsible for anything beyond her own affairs, do so,” clarified that this perspective is not due to any deficiency in women but to preserve their peace and primary function in the system of creation.

Dr. Sajjadi-Amin, in the concluding part of his remarks, referring to historical narratives related to Hazrat Zainab Kubra (peace be upon her) and Hakimah Khatun, stated that Shiite history has shown that women have been consulted and trusted in specific religious matters, indicating that legal differences are not a sign of inherent deficiency but stem from the division of divine duties.

He concluded that the jurisprudential analysis of legal differences between men and women—including in marja‘iyyah, testimony, and jihad—must be understood within the framework of the system of responsibilities, not based on gender valuation.

Continuing the seminar, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mohammad Hadi Fazel Baboli, as the critic, began his remarks by congratulating the birth of Hazrat Zainab Kubra (peace be upon her) and stated: This session should not be considered a critique in the conventional sense but a form of scholarly collaboration to elucidate and promote an important social and religious discussion.

Emphasizing the importance of the topic, he said that the issue of women’s marja‘iyyah is a “prevalent and needed discussion for women’s society and seminaries” and must be addressed with precision and jurisprudential methodology.

A member of the Scientific Council of the Women and Family Jurisprudence Group at the Research Institute of Contemporary Jurisprudence Studies, emphasizing that gender plays no role in the principle of fiqh and derivation, stated: “No one has said that women are limited. If anyone holds that women are deficient in reason or religious understanding, this is a rare and disregardable view.”

The seminar critic then examined the historical and social dimensions of the issue and emphasized that understanding the historical context of fiqh is effective in comprehending theories related to women’s ifta’ and marja‘iyyah. He said: “Our jurists are immune from being influenced by social conditions, but as Martyr Motahhari said, a rural mujtahid is rural, and an urban mujtahid is urban. The influence of environment and time on jurisprudential views is undeniable.”

This seminary professor, citing examples from comparative jurisprudence, such as the views of Sahib Jawahir on gazing at a non-mahram woman and the exception for proposal, showed that even great jurists have performed ijtihad within the social context of their time, and this does not necessarily indicate a deficiency in their fiqh.

A member of the Scientific Council of the Women and Family Jurisprudence Group, in another part of his remarks, referring to the historical role of great Islamic women such as Hazrat Fatimah (peace be upon her) and Hazrat Zainab (peace be upon her), stated: “These great figures delivered speeches and explained religious teachings in specific conditions, and the flow of Islam broke limiting social boundaries for women with their presence. We need to examine this historical trend more precisely to determine whether restrictions emerged later due to social conventions or not.”

He continued by emphasizing the necessity of distinguishing between the two authorities of ifta’ and marja‘iyyah, stating: “We must separate marja‘iyyah from ifta’ and consider ifta’ important on its own, not passing over it lightly.”

He explained that although the principle of ijtihad for women is unproblematic, the authoritativeness of a woman’s fatwa for others requires independent evidence, as the default principle is the lack of authoritativeness of one person’s statement for another unless proven by religious evidence. He added: “If a faqih’s statement is to be authoritative for a muqallid, sufficient evidence must be presented. This evidence must also be re-examined for women to clarify whether existing practice and evidence include them or not.”

A member of the Scientific Council of the Women and Family Jurisprudence Group, referring to some jurists’ views on women’s congregational prayer leadership and analogizing it to the issue of ifta’, stated that in both cases, evidence is required, not merely reliance on generalities.

In another part of the critique, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Fazel Baboli noted: One of the major challenges in discussing women’s marja‘iyyah is the confusion between marja‘iyyah as a scholarly status and guardianship as a social and executive status.

Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Fazel Baboli, referring to some views in jurists’ works, added: “If marja‘iyyah is equated with guardianship, gender naturally becomes an issue; but if marja‘iyyah is considered a scholarly and ifta’ status, a significant portion of the problems is resolved.”

In explaining this distinction, citing examples from jurisprudence such as crescent sighting and the guardianship of the religious ruler, he explained that care must be taken not to confuse scholarly marja‘iyyah with social guardianship, as this confusion has been the source of many unnecessary restrictions in the history of women’s jurisprudence.

He concluded by recounting a memory of the Isfahani lady mujtahid, Banu Amin, adding that historical experiences show women can play active scholarly and religious roles within existing religious and social frameworks, whether in scholarly responses to women or in seminary education and training.

In another part of the seminar, Ms. Dr. Toufiqi, as one of the virtual attendees, while appreciating the organizers and the discussed topics, referring to the necessity of precisely distinguishing jurisprudential discussions from theological ones, stated that introducing non-jurisprudential discussions sometimes causes ambiguity in arguments. She clarified: “There is no explicit statement in jurisprudential sources that childbearing is a religious duty for women, and even if reproduction is considered obedience to a duty, child-rearing and upbringing are not jurisprudentially obligatory for women; to the extent that they can even receive payment for breastfeeding.”

Dr. Toufiqi added that relying on emotional differences between women and men and attributing child-rearing responsibility to women’s inherent or “God-given” characteristics is a recent approach in recent centuries, and its entry into jurisprudence can deviate the reasoning process from its scholarly path.

Referring to the experiences of various societies, she said: Many social systems have provided mechanisms such as daycare or job supports for women’s participation in professional and social activities so that the maternal role does not conflict with women’s scholarly and social employment. According to her, with advancements in pregnancy and birth control technologies, the concept of motherhood has largely separated from womanhood, and this reality must be considered in jurisprudential analyses.

Dr. Toufiqi, in another part of her remarks, referring to the raised question about whether the principle of marja‘iyyah is desirable or undesirable, noted that rethinking is needed in this area. She said: “Perhaps the time has come to redefine the institution of marja‘iyyah not individually but in a council-based or specialized form; a marja‘iyyah that can also issue opinions in various scholarly and religious domains from a feminine perspective.”

She added that such a perspective can align with some “woman-centered” theories in Islamic theology and help rebuild public trust in the religious system. Toufiqi concluded by emphasizing that the apparent presence of women in religious positions, if not accompanied by changes in mechanisms and conceptual rethinking, will not have a real impact on gender justice.

The scientific seminar “Women’s Marja‘iyyah: Dimensions and Challenges,” by presenting diverse jurisprudential and social views, sought to examine various dimensions of the issue in a scholarly and fair framework. The main focus of the discussions was distinguishing between the guardianship and non-guardianship aspects of a marja‘ taqlid and clarifying the role of gender in each of these two domains.

In this seminar, Dr. Mahdi Sajjadi-Amin, emphasizing that ijtihad and ifta’ are scholarly and gender-neutral processes, considered jurisprudential differences between men and women as pertaining to the domain of guardianship aspects and clarified that negating guardianship from women does not mean denying a right but is of the nature of removing responsibility and obligation. In contrast, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Fazel Baboli, while confirming the possibility of ijtihad for women, emphasized the necessity of re-reading jurisprudential and historical evidence in the context of marja‘iyyah and reminded that scholarly marja‘iyyah should not be confused with social guardianship.

Additionally, in the concluding part of the seminar, Dr. Toufiqi, critiquing some traditional foundations, emphasized the need for rethinking the institutional structure of marja‘iyyah and the possibility of women’s participation in council-based or specialized forms, and pointed to the importance of distinguishing jurisprudential discussions from social and theological analyses.

Overall, the discussions in this seminar showed that the topic of women’s marja‘iyyah remains an important and noteworthy issue in seminaries and jurisprudential centers, requiring deeper research and interdisciplinary dialogues to achieve an up-to-date understanding of the scholarly and religious position of women in the Shiite jurisprudential system.