Note: Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mohammad Taqi Sohrabifar is counted among the young advanced jurisprudence and principles professors of the Qom Seminary who also enters emerging jurisprudential issues. Although he does not like the expression of minimal and maximal jurisprudence, with the expression of “necessity of sufficing with certainties in jurisprudence,” he makes evident his advocacy of the minimal approach to jurisprudence. We spoke with him about the necessities of contemporary jurisprudence based on the minimal approach to jurisprudence. He believes that moving beyond certainties means attributing conjectural and probable rulings to God Almighty, which leads to wasting religion and people’s rights. The detailed exclusive interview of Contemporary Jurisprudence with this advanced professor of the Qom Seminary is as follows:
Contemporary Jurisprudence: What are the necessities and characteristics of the minimal approach to jurisprudence? Is the minimal approach to jurisprudence a single theory or is it like an abstract collection of several theories and approaches that share in some cases?
Sohrabifar: I am not very agreeable with the expressions “minimal and maximal.” These expressions are relative and graded and may have a specific semantic load. What is important in my opinion are the following matters: Peacefulness toward clear divine rulings.
Explanation that we as humans who believe in creedal principles must be obedient to divine rulings that, after passing through the path of one thousand four hundred years, have clearly reached us. These rulings may be in individual issues or social issues.
Regarding rulings based on conjecture and guess that have not clearly reached us (rulings based on probability and conjecture), separating the ruling into two types of individual and social jurisprudence seems necessary. In individual jurisprudence, every Muslim, in proportion to the degree of faith and also the conditions of his life, voluntarily observes a percentage of probable rulings. Believers in individual jurisprudence, by observing uncertain rulings, receive their spiritual reward even if these rulings do not conform to reality. In other words, believers in this type of rulings either under the title of obedience or under the title of submission attain divine reward. But in social jurisprudence which in some way affects the rights of society’s individuals, sufficing with certainties seems necessary and implementing uncertain rulings in society in the name of religion brings wasting the right of God and wasting the rights of humans.
Contemporary Jurisprudence: Based on the minimal approach to jurisprudence, what necessities and characteristics does contemporary jurisprudence, especially social jurisprudence, acquire?
Sohrabifar: It is obvious that by sufficing with certain evidence in social jurisprudence, many topics will be devoid of jurisprudential ruling. This scope (non-certainties) is determined by the sovereignty using the collection of reasons. This method has at least two important advantages: This type of rulings is not attributed to religion and the right of God in not attributing unknowns to Him is preserved. Since this type of rulings is not attributed to religion, the collection of reasons without fear of being accused of irreligion can periodically review these laws and easily correct their possible defects.
Social jurisprudential rulings differ from individual jurisprudential rulings; therefore, establishing a government based on religious and jurisprudential teachings requires double precision.
The humble one, by negating secular thought and also negating the thought of suspending social rulings in the era of occultation, tries to present a third way and that is the necessity of basing social rulings on certainties; in other words, considering the seriousness of social issues, probable evidence, whether absolute probabilities or specific probabilities that are cited in individual jurisprudence, will not have the necessary proof in social jurisprudence.
In the lines below, we first review some distinctions of social jurisprudence from individual and then reach its result: Characteristics of social jurisprudential rulings
A) Considering that in the past fourteen centuries except rare cases, a government centered on Shiite jurisprudence has not been formed; therefore, Shiite jurisprudential knowledge has mainly been concerned with individual issues. Many of us remember that before the Islamic Revolution of Iran, only chapters like purity, prayer, hajj were flourishing and even in some seminaries, teaching chapters of hudud and diyat was abandoned. In seminaries where these discussions were raised, due to non-implementation of social rulings in society and non-raising of daily questions and issues, social jurisprudence did not have sufficient flourishing.
B) The extent of influence of social political affairs and their importance causes social political jurisprudence to have much more importance among people compared to individual jurisprudence. It is clear that the importance of prayer and fasting as an individual teaching is very different from the importance of guardianship of an individual over society’s individuals or the importance of hudud and diyat laws.
C) Due to the high degree of importance, disagreement of jurists in these topics shakes society’s stability. A look at the history of the recent one or two centuries of Iran is enough to realize how much disagreement in jurisprudential opinions has caused society’s instability; from disagreement over the prohibition and permissibility of manifestations of new civilization like new schools, use of electricity, telephone, identity card, and women’s voting rights to music and obligatoriness or non-obligatoriness of hijab. From prominent examples, we can cite the severe disagreement of jurists in the Constitutional era which ultimately led to handing over power and sovereignty from the clergy.
Such characteristics require that the principles and foundations of social jurisprudence be different from individual jurisprudence. One of these foundations is sufficing with certainties and avoiding general and specific probabilities in social jurisprudence.
This claim is explained with several expressions:
A) “Single narration” is the most applied jurisprudential evidence. We know that many greats like Shaykh Mufid and Sayyid Murtada not only do not consider single narration authoritative but consider its non-authoritativeness related to all Shiite jurisprudence. Also, the late Fayd considers the rule of authoritativeness of single narration outside the jurisprudence of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them). Now if we ignore such serious oppositions and accept the authoritativeness of single narration in general, we must note that the main evidence for authoritativeness of single narration is the conduct of the rational and it is clear that the rational measure the strength and authoritativeness of evidence with the degree of importance of the topic; for example, the evidence necessary for determining the duty of doubts in prayer cannot be the same as the evidence necessary for executing an apostate, therefore some jurists have adjusted the authoritativeness of evidence with the degree of importance of topics: for example, the late Ayatollah Sayyid Ahmad Khansari in Jami‘ al-Madarik does not consider single narration authoritative in topics related to human lives and higher than this opinion is the view of greats like Muhaqqiq Hilli and Ibn Idris who have considered executing hudud specific to the Imam or his special deputy, but we can at least hold this opinion that considering the rational principle (proportion of evidence and topic) in social topics, less than certain evidence cannot be religious authority.
B) We know that disagreement of jurists in fatwas indicates the openness of the door of ijtihad. At the same time, usually in every jurisprudential issue we enter, we face multiple opinions and views. Sometimes a jurist has various and multiple opinions in one topic. Considering that every topic has more than one ruling and considering that great jurists exert their effort to reach the ruling with God, so all this disagreement indicates the lack of convincing evidence; because assuming having sufficient and adequate evidence, all that disagreement is unjustifiable. Such rulings more than having roots in revelation have roots in human thoughts; for example, in the chapter of consuming khums in the era of occultation, the late Bahrani in Hada’iq quotes fourteen opinions. The late Fayd expresses jurists’ disagreements up to twenty, thirty opinions and even more. Also regarding women’s voting rights, until before the Islamic Revolution, there were serious oppositions. The late Mudarris about women’s voting rights says: “The proof is that today whatever we contemplate, we see God has not placed capability in them (women) to have the merit of voting right ….”
C) Paying attention to this point is necessary that in all religious and non-religious topics, disagreement of opinions is a natural matter; but where a ruling is to be attributed to religion and that ruling is to be implemented in society in the name of religion, we must have certainty about attributing that ruling to the legislator. This is while the existence of disagreements in many rulings and jurisprudential issues indicates the doubtfulness of those rulings.
Contemporary Jurisprudence: Based on the minimal approach to jurisprudence, is creating jurisprudential systems like economic jurisprudential system, political jurisprudential system, etc. possible?
Sohrabifar: Considering the given explanations, jurisprudential certainties in every topic can be raised as principle and base and in non-certainties refer to the collection of reasons and without attributing rational opinions to religion, arrange a system.
But obtaining opinion and view from jurisprudence for all aspects and branches and in this path being forced to personal, taste-based interpretations and resorting to conjecture and guess and naming the product of this effort religious and Shiite jurisprudence, we have taken steps toward weakening religion and wasting people’s rights.
Contemporary Jurisprudence: Based on the minimal approach to jurisprudence, is “creating Islamic government” a desirable and possible matter?
Sohrabifar: The desirability of creating Islamic government in the era of occultation is at least conditional on two conditions: Religious rulers, regardless of their own interpretations of religion, in the matter of government only suffice with applying religion’s certainties and avoid imposing conjectures and famous views arising from religion’s sources on people. People’s opinion in accepting religious government is necessary and essential. It should not be felt that religious sovereignty like some existing governments does not yield to people’s votes.
May God have mercy on Martyr Beheshti who considers considerations and notes for religious government in the era of occultation. He believes the era of occultation is not the era of reaching the ideal society; therefore, absolute justice must be downgraded to relative justice: “Until the time of appearance, no uprising for establishing the divine government of the infallible Imam has meaning, but establishing the government of the infallible Imam is different from establishing relative social justice and enjoining good and forbidding evil within possibility. Absolute justice government is specific to the infallible Imam (peace be upon him), that too in the time of appearance.”
In summary, paying attention to epistemological limitations in the era of occultation, paying attention to limitation in terms of worthy and necessary human force, and also paying attention to people’s desire is necessary.
Contemporary Jurisprudence: Based on the minimal approach to jurisprudence, does the method of inferring issues and the weight given to some evidence in the inference operation differ?
Sohrabifar: Sufficing with certainties is a different method from the common method that I explained in previous contents.
Contemporary Jurisprudence: What advantages does the minimal approach to jurisprudence have for solving contemporary jurisprudential issues? What are its damages?
Sohrabifar: In the method of sufficing with certainties, the burden of religion in the jurisprudential realm becomes light and naturally the religious instead of the considerable attention they spent on jurisprudential issues arising from conjecture and guess, focus more on religion’s certainties; and in other words, the ground for upgrading religion’s certain dimensions like monotheism and ethics is provided. Human structure is such that attention to one realm interferes with attention to other realms. It seems in current religiosity, attention to jurisprudence has become so prominent that it has prevented attention to religion’s fundamental matters (beliefs – ethics). It is necessary for religion-knowing scholars and sages, in the direction of preserving people’s religion, to keep people’s attention to various realms of religion balanced so that religion’s secondary matters do not take precedence over principal matters.
Many of the new religious generation due to unnecessary strictnesses have become disillusioned with the essence of religion. This is while we do not find firm and convincing evidence for many fatwas; as a result, with some fatwas whose attribution to God and the Messenger (peace be upon him) we are not certain of, we distance the religious from religion’s principles.
In the new method, collective rational opinions are given more value and humans’ role in decisions increases. This method both conforms to human dignity and creates more sense of responsibility in them.