Hujjat al-Islam wa Al-Muslimin Khademi Kusha said: In our proposed structure, the essence of the subject and its components and conditions are studied first to determine which titles correspond to this subject. In the next stage, in addition to the essence of the subject, with the premise that in our jurisprudence, the goals of creating the subject and the goals of the active verb are effective in the subject, we must examine the subject in terms of the functions and goals that the users pursue in it. And in the third stage, with the presupposition that the works of the subject are effective in the judgment of the subject, for this reason, we must also examine the works.

The meeting “Method of developing a system of issues in new branches of jurisprudence” was held on Sunday, May 23, by the Research Institute of Contemporary Jurisprudence.

Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimin Muhammad Ali Khademi Kusha, a member of the academic board of the Research Institute of Islamic Sciences and Culture, on the 23rd of May, at the scientific meeting “The method of developing a system of issues in newly emerging branches of jurisprudence”, which was held by the Research Institute of Contemporary Fiqh, stating that every day witnessed the emergence of new topics and issues, and jurisprudence is responsible for answering the questions. Due to this necessity, we have arrived at a model for developing a system of issues in emerging issues that has jurisprudential support. This model is also useful in the field of thematics, it is also useful for the structuring of problems.

Hujjat al-Islam wa al-Muslimin Khademi Kusha stated that the Imami jurists have often focused on the topics of discussion in the newly created issues, but in the newly created issues, today we face issues that are basically ambiguous and said: Our proposed structure is similar to the structure used by the early jurists. And at first, the essence of the subject and its components and conditions are studied to determine which titles are suitable for this subject. In the next stage, in addition to the essence of the subject, with the premise that in our jurisprudence, the goals of creating the subject and the goals of the active verb are effective in the subject, we must examine the subject in terms of the functions and goals that the users pursue in it. And in the third stage, with the presupposition that the works of the subject are effective in the judgment of the subject, for this reason, we must also examine the works.

In this respect, he stated: Our structure is similar to the structure of the early scholars, which means that when we face a subject that has no name or formality, we must first pay attention to the subject itself, and our sources are full of traditions that have discussed the subject. Therefore, first, one should study about the components and conditions of the subject to see what titles are compatible in this subject. Therefore, the first study about the subject is from the point of view of the components, the relationship of the components with each other and the conditions and form of the subject.

By expressing the premise that in Imamiyyah jurisprudence, the goals of creating the subject and the goals of the active verb are effective in the matter, he said: In another view, in addition to the essence of the matter, the matter should be analysed in terms of the functions and goals that the users pursue in it. Let’s see why people are looking for this issue. Based on the goals and functions of the subject, it must be checked which jurisprudential titles correspond to this.

Mr. Khademi Kusha said that the effect of the subject is effective in the ruling and since the effect of the subject is the cause of the action, then it is included in the ruling and stated: In the third step, we must also examine the effects, works and accessories of a subject; what if both the effects of the subject are effective and its accessories are effective – as required by the prohibition of the forbidden.

Our three-faceted structure has jurisprudential and intellectual support

This Islamic jurisprudence researcher also said: We propose a three-faceted structure to bring jurisprudential issues together: the essence of the subject – the subject’s goals – the effects and accessories of the subject.

The member of the academic faculty of the Research Institute of Islamic Culture and Thought said that this three-faceted structure has an argument: in order to consider these three axes in each subject, we have a rational argument, limiting the issues related to the subjects in jurisprudence to these three headings. As a rational argument, apart from that, when we turn the pages of jurisprudence, we see that in some places, our jurists have given the ruling based on the title, in some places based on works and accessories, and sometimes – even if less – based on the goals. Therefore, in jurisprudence, the issues are limited to these, but the jurists have not taken this into account.

The three-dimensional structure is clear in the thematics and has contradictions in the problem formulation system!

Later, Hujjat al-Islam wa al-Muslimin, Hasan Ali Ali-Akbarian, a member of the scientific board of the Research Institute of Islamic Sciences and Culture, criticized the content and stated that this triple structure has transparency in the theology, but it suffers from contradictions in the formulation of the system of issues. The contradiction is due to the fact that if we say that in order to understand each issue that has an issue and ruling, you must identify its goals, effects and essence, then issue a fatwa, then contradictions are necessary in many issues. Its goals and effects have a Shari’ah ruling, and each of its goals and effects is the same. Therefore, a Shari’ah issue has three dimensions, each of these three forms a part of the issue, and all three of them are involved in the same issue. The involvement of these three dimensions in problemology is clear, but if we want to involve these three dimensions in the problems of the system, it is necessary to separate the rulings of these three from each other.

Are the goals of the producer involved in the goals of distribution or consumer or not?!

The member of the scientific faculty of the Islamic Science and Culture Research Institute added: In these goals, which are the goals of the producer, distributor, and consumer, do the goals of the producer have an influence on the decision of the producer, or do they also influence the decision of the distributor and consumer? If it is involved, it has two states: it should be seen that the goal is inseparable, that is, it is part of the verb, or the goal may or may not be achieved. We should distinguish between these two situations. If it is inseparable, the goal is the same as the effect, and the goal and the effect become one thing, but if it is possible for the goal to be realized or not, then it cannot be said that the goal is involved and the discussion becomes conditional. Thus, it must be clarified that these goals and effects, whether their rulings interfere with the ruling of the essence of the matter or should be discussed separately.

He said that there are two considerations in this matter: One consideration is that the forbidden effect itself is forbidden, but assuming that we consider the introduction of “Museleh” as forbidden, its forbidden is not personal, but something else. Therefore, it has a different ruling, not a self-ruling, and this is a very important issue, because an act that is forbidden by its very nature has effects on it. The prohibition of others is not invalid, but the prohibition of the self is invalid.Thus it should be determined whether the judgment in this three-faceted structure is personal or otherwise?!

In the statement of the second observation, he added: The second observation is that this work has an association with the verb. Is it a concrete union or a union? If it is a union, it goes back to the essence, and if it is concrete, the ruling is out of the question. In my opinion, if the work has a concrete combination with the ruling according to custom, its ruling cannot be extended to the subject’s ruling, for these are two rulings, and it is not possible to extend the ruling of the work to the verb.

Compound topics have many fatwas!

At the end of the meeting of Hujjat al-Islam wa Al-Muslimin, Khademi diligently answered the questions of the honorable critic and stated that there are many issues in complex issues and said: In complex issues, when the ruling is given, the mufti says that it is from a specific direction. Initially, you don’t have a direction in complex subjects to have a verdict. Consequently, when we want to arrange the structure of issues, we say that because the issue has different dimensions, we place each dimension in one part. Therefore, just as the thematics has this pattern, you must follow the same pattern in the arrangement of the issues. Maybe write as much as a problem book for a subject. In thematics, it was a compound subject that had dozens of problems. Thus, the same method must be checked in the system of problems with logical justification.

There are different types of goals!

The member of the academic board of the Research Institute of Islamic Sciences and Culture stated that there are different types of goals in response to the critic’s criticism and added: There are different types of goals: realized, unrealized and expected. In this case, production goals have an effect on the distributor’s goals in one way and not in another. For instance, some goals can be repelled and some cannot be repelled. If it cannot be eliminated, the purpose of production has an effect on consumption. There is a difference between the ruling that is determined by the effect of the goal and the ruling that is determined by the existence of the works. But as for the goal, the effect starts from the moment it starts. Thus, the production goals have an effect on the consumption goals. When we say based on the works, it means that you should know that a subject sometimes has certain rules and sometimes it has other rules. The effect of combination is unifying and concrete; Where there is a union, the ruling spreads absolutely, and in concrete terms, each has a ruling. Again, the effects are divided into preventable and non-preventable. The first is not necessarily the rule of the work and not necessarily the rule of the subject, but the second is because they are always together.

I did not understand anything clear about the defense!

After presenting the defenses of Hujjat al-Islam wa al-Muslimin Khademi Kusha, Hujjat al-Islam wa al-Muslimin Ali Akbarian criticized and stated: ln terms of what Hujjat al-lslam wa al-Muslimin Khademi Kusha stated, the goals of a thing have an effect on the judgment of those goals, but they are not involved in the title of the subject. These are two issues: firstly, what is the ruling on this matter? What is the verdict of this goal? What is the verdict of this work? Based on his three-faceted structure, we make three problems for a theme in terms of title, purpose, and effect. In every problem, only its own aspect – for instance, the goal or the effect – is involved. Secondly, now that I don’t want what is involved in my fatwa to be limited to one issue, I want to analyse all the surrounding issues of that issue; If the peripheral issues of an issue are to be discussed in the system of issues, it is no longer limited to the goal, effect, and essence, and we do not have an intellectual limitation, but many peripheral issues arise that must be considered along with the goal, effect, and essence. I didn’t understand anything clear from your statements that you want to get the target sentence or the title sentence. These are three independent issues and have three independent rulings, and it is not like I see these three to reach a single ruling.

There is a difference between “Mansus” and “Non Mansus” subject!

At the end of the session of Hujjat al-Islam wa al-Muslimin, Khadimi Kusha replied the problems of Hujjat al-Islam wa al-Muslimin Ali Akbari by stating that there is a difference between mansus and non-mansus issues: In the written texts, the jurists said the ruling based on the title and did not go to the works, but in the non-texted ones only they argued about the title and never provided a method. In written subjects, the text itself guides us in the direction of the ruling and for instance states that it must be analysed in terms of works or essence, but in non-written subjects, this direction does not exist and the subject is completely unknown. Maybe ten written topics are hidden in one unwritten topic. You have to arrange the unwritten matter based on the three-dimensional structure that I have presented so that its verdict is known.

In reply to the critic’s question about whether the issue is one or multiple, he stated: For the issue is complex, the system of “issues” becomes multiple. I think that the jurists have not looked comprehensively at the new issues. Considering the peripheral issues that the professor said, people want “one” jurisprudential ruling on the created issues and they have nothing to do with the components, so here all these peripheral issues that the professor said must be given to the audience in order to reach a verdict.