At the meeting of the researchers of the Research Institute of Contemporary Jurisprudence, which was held on the occasion of the Research Week, Ayatullah Sayyid Mujtaba Nurmufidi discussed the conceptual framework of the lexical composition of “contemporary jurisprudence”.
Emphasizing that the nature of contemporary jurisprudence is an important question inside and outside the field of theology, he listed the five main axes in this discussion, explaining the vocabulary, the bases, the requirements, the field of research, etc.
Ayatullah Nurmufidi emphasized the necessity of connecting contemporary jurisprudence with jurisprudence in the framework that has existed so far, and considered the criteria for measuring this commonality in the four axes of goals, foundations, resources and approaches and added: this criterion is both aspects of commonality and aspects of privilege and in terms of approaches and common goals, because absolute jurisprudence has the same goals as contemporary jurisprudence, and both seek to infer or discover the ruling of Shari’ah. Of course, in contemporary jurisprudence, we pursue a specific goal in addition to traditional jurisprudence, which is development in operations or inferential knowledge. When we develop the field of individual human life into social life, and the legal personality emerges, then the scope of inference will also develop. Therefore, we must take the scope of inference in the depth of human life.
In clarifying the foundations, he said: These foundations have commonalities in both contemporary jurisprudence and traditional jurisprudence, one of which is in terms of knowledge. Jurisprudence is based on rules, but when it is placed in the contemporary field, both knowledge and methods are developed. Another direction is in terms of resources. The sources of jurisprudence are the same as the four sources, and in contemporary jurisprudence, they are also preserved, but efforts are made to correct the imbalance between the evidence and, for example, the Qur’an and reason are placed on their own levels.
He emphasized: This has happened in some periods of jurisprudence, and this approach can be clearly seen in some inferences of the first martyr or the writer of al-Jawahir. For example, in the discussion of the dowry claim by the woman, the first martyr considers the decision to submit the man’s claim to the customary conditions at the time of the narration, which was that the man paid the entire dowry at the beginning of the marriage.
He added: Regarding the narrations, it should be seen how it should be dealt with, and issues such as tanqih manat, induction of character, appropriateness of ruling and topic, priorities, etc. should be explained, because there is a debate whether these cases are basically verbal expressions or not? Now the limits and documentation of these sources should be determined.
Prof. of al-bahth al-kharij at Qum Seminary: The same is true for the intellect and the narrations themselves. For example, it is common to refer to the taste of the Shari’ah, and for example, Muhaqqiq al-Khu’i, in the discussion of the evidence of the authority of a woman, after rejecting all the arguments, considers the taste of the Shari’ah to be against the authority of a woman. Or in the rule of negation of mustache, some jurists, after rejecting all the evidence, citing the opinion of the jurists, say that the opinion of the jurists is not satisfied that the unbeliever have a way over the Muslim. And it is interesting that his citations are also verses and hadiths in the taste of Shari’ah.
He emphasized: From this point of view, absolute jurisprudence and contemporary jurisprudence, although they are together in general approaches, they have differences in specific approaches.
The head of the Research Institute of Contemporary Jurisprudence further discussed the priority of contemporary jurisprudence over other additional jurisprudences and added: All the terms that deal with new jurisprudence such as governmental jurisprudence, social jurisprudence, civilized jurisprudence, etc., claim to be different from the traditional approach, but contemporary jurisprudence is the most comprehensive and comprehensive combination of all these. Contemporary jurisprudence means a jurisprudence that takes help from new knowledge and asks for help from new methods, deals with new and emerging issues, rereads old issues and examines them with a new approach. jurisprudence that must deal with the issues of the contemporary world; Among these issues are the processes of social administration and also the presentation of the intellectual system.
He pointed out: With this approach, the most comprehensive lexical combination in emerging jurisprudence is “contemporary jurisprudence”. For example, civilized jurisprudence is a jurisprudence that deals with the processes that lead to the production of civilization, and considers the process, not partial and sectional actions. The defenders of governmental jurisprudence also see the basis of government in today’s society, because the basis of education, morals, politics and society is in the hands of the government and the basis should be in the hands of the government.
He emphasized that the defenders of social jurisprudence are looking for it from the point of view that nowadays individual life has no meaning except in some essential matters and society has become human and man finds meaning in interaction with society and obligatory verbs must be checked this view.
Ayatullah Nurmufidi said: Six or seven definitions have been proposed regarding the jurisprudence of the Nizam, which themselves differ. On the one hand, there is legal jurisprudence, which the late Martyr Sadr says it means jurisprudential systems; And on the other hand, the claim that some present today that systematic jurisprudence means a jurisprudence that is systematic and none of the components are in conflict with each other and nothing will be done right until we do this; Neither a civilization will be produced, nor will the government be successful, nor will we be able to compete with diverse thoughts in the world. Of course, some also reduce system jurisprudence to political system jurisprudence, which will not be different from governmental jurisprudence.
He emphasized that the contemporary jurisprudence includes all of these, because the contemporary jurisprudence is a jurisprudence that takes advantage of new knowledge and uses new methods and rereads old issues with a new approach. With such approach, the contemporary jurisprudence observes the issues of the contemporary world and the processes of the new world and seeks to present a coherent intellectual system based on this.