A fundamental debate is the issue of the relationship between jurisprudence and the law, which should be clarified, how and what is stated in the jurisprudence should be included in the law? That is, the principle that you say is in the constitution, is it correct in general? We have rulings in jurisprudence that may have obstacles in becoming law. Can it be said in a very general way that the first principle and rule is that what is stated in jurisprudence should become a law? Likewise, if laws are approved that are not included in jurisprudence, how do these laws become Shari’ah and religious? Or that the scope of some laws does not require religion to speak about it, such as matters approved by the government, such as weekends, or traffic laws.

Ayatullah Fazel Lankarani, a member of the Board of Trustees of the Institute of Contemporary Jurisprudence Studies, during the meeting with the new director of the Islamic Research Center of the Islamic Council, discussed the issues, the details of which are presented below:

A fundamental debate is the issue of the relationship between jurisprudence and the law, which should be clarified, how and what is stated in the jurisprudence should be included in the law? That is, the principle that you say is in the constitution, is it correct in general? We have rulings in jurisprudence that may have obstacles in becoming law. Can it be said in a very general way that the first principle and rule is that what is stated in jurisprudence should become a law? Likewise, if laws are approved that are not included in jurisprudence, how do these laws become Shari’ah and religious? Or that the scope of some laws does not require religion to speak about it, such as matters approved by the government, such as weekends, or traffic laws.

In such cases, someone wants to say that this is the position of jurisprudence, but a higher point should be made and that religion should not interfere in this field. As if we want to say what is the position of jurisprudence regarding the working hours of people in society? No jurist says that we have a reason that it should be seven hours or ten hours. These matters are the authority of the ruler and executive officials and managers of the country.

Therefore, we must separate the cases that have nothing to do with religion, and religion should not interfere in it, and cases such as the issue of parental retribution, where if the father kills the child, there is no retribution, but if the mother kills, it is famously said that it is retribution and it should be carried out, or the issue of the wife’s inheritance, which jurisprudence must express its opinion. Some intelligent people asked me if religion intervenes to close the weekdays? I was clearly saying that religion did not interfere in this issue and it does not interfere, it is the government that decides whether there will be no holiday or two days off or which days of the week should be closed. Basically, we do not have such a thing as a holiday in religion to say which days are recommended to be holidays. Yes, even about Friday, we have no reason to recommend that it be a holiday, only a series of practices and customs for Friday have been mentioned.

Where should religion and jurisprudence be present or not? It should be compiled and given to the legislators and the districts should know these boundaries.

The second issue is that everything that has been mentioned in jurisprudence so far should become law in the same way? Or should the aspects of government be included in it? Our late father, may Allah be pleased with him, used to say in his jurisprudence discussions on occasions, in this discussion, Imam Khumayni should have issued another fatwa on the profession of his legal speeches. Because the fatwa written in Tahrir al-wasileh was before reaching the theory of legal addresses. Many of the fatwas that exist in our jurisprudence today are basically independent of the government, I am not saying that these should not be, but the direction of the government is not taken into account, so if we want to present it as a legal address, we have to say something else.

I remember that when I was teaching al-Bahth al-kharij on al-Bay’ (sale), I mentioned that in jurisprudence, the sale is correct and can be corrected and completed with the permission of the owner. But can the legislator propose this as a law and write in the law that if someone sells someone else’s house, it is a futhuli sale. If the owner allows it, there is no problem. In my opinion, this is a crime in the current law, and that is the right. That is, this jurisprudential ruling is an individual ruling regardless of whether it lives under a government system. We are now in a system where if someone wants to sell someone’s house, he must get permission and power of attorney from the owner and it must be a document and other things.

Or in our jurisprudence, they say that there is no problem with tawriyeh because it is neither false nor true, but when it is placed in the government system, can the Islamic ruler perform tawriyeh? No, he doesn’t have the right to do Tawrieh, Turieh can be a personal matter between ethnic groups, but the Islamic ruler, who according to “Tammat Kalimatu Rabbikah Sidqan wa Adla”, his speech and behavior should be based on truth and justice, cannot do Tawrieh.

This is also the second issue that there is a series of matters in jurisprudence that, if it wants to be brought up in the framework of the government, it will find other nuances and directions. It was, but now its topic has changed, many jurisprudential issues change their topic when it comes to the government, that is, it cannot even be said that it has found a secondary title, but it has become a topic. Therefore, the rulings should be looked at from the government’s point of view and these jurisprudence councils should not move forward on the jurisprudential mor that is now being proposed in the form of ijtihad and individual rulings in the areas. It should be carefully considered as a law.

The third point is that the current capacity of the field should be used a lot, now there is a situation where the fields can come to the field and show the ability and capacity of jurisprudence in the administration of society. Since religion should speak, present the sphere of religion’s speech, and after all, our system is Islamic, a law should not be passed in this country and after ten years they say that this law is not compatible with religion, this is a cause of great discomfort and concern. The Majlis Islamic Research Center must ensure that the laws proposed in the Majlis are in accordance with the rules of Islam, and this is a great help to the Guardian Council.

There was a time when a law was passed in this country to control the population, a law completely against religion, at that time, people came and did whatever they like to do. I remember that we sent the objections of that law to the health committee of the parliament, they were not ready for our content to accept and revise that law, until the leader said that this law is against Shari’ah, and thank God they stopped it, even though it was too late.

Or this subsidy law, which is one of the laws against religion, I beg you to work on this, in the same year 1989, when the president was maneuvering a lot on subsidies and the radio and television, media and ministries were also helping him, in a live program called “These Nights”, when I was talking about usury, I said, “Why didn’t you consult with the in charge of district before passing the subsidy law?” I said that we have a tradition that a person who wakes up in the morning and looks at someone else giving him something is cursed and this will be the whole of the society. I said that with this law, you have put 60 million people as the whole of the society and the whole of the government, why? This is not compatible with our religious method.

Among other things that I ask you to address is the issue of the stock market, which is not compatible with our religious economy. The main foundations of Islamic economy are trade.

During the days of Corona, they held a conference about the economic method of Amir al-Mu’minin, peace be upon him, in Arak province, and they invited me as a speaker. After quoting things from Amir al-Mu’minin regarding the emphasis on trade, employment, and business, I said that now I want to ask the question, is the stock market a business? Is it an employment exchange? Is what Amir al-Mu’minin said consistent with the stock market? If you ask me as a student, I will say that it does not match in any way. Of course, this issue was at a time when the president, the government, and everyone emphasized that people should invest their money in the stock market, unfortunately, they removed this part during the broadcast, and later, when they sent the film to Qum Radio and Television, this part was removed.

It is necessary for the Islamic Research Center to work on these matters. The stock market may have some benefits in some countries whose economy has a thousand roots, but in our country, how much capital has destroyed people? How many people’s lives were destroyed who sold their wife’s and children’s gold or borrowed and invested? This research center should be very careful and hold an urgent scientific meeting in the Qum seminary on whether the stock market is compatible with religious foundations or not. For me, it is clear that it is not compatible with our religious matters.

Since then, the first concern of any government that comes to power is how much subsidy it should pay at the beginning of each month. This decree caused a lot of damage to the people and the country, which is still ongoing, although it is very difficult to remove it. Indeed, it is one of the examples of the narration “Ittaqi Shar Man Ahsnta ilayh”. If a person gives money to someone once, ten times, one year, two years, if he interrupts it in the tenth year, the same person will become the most enemy of that one.

Or the issue of banks; I said at the same time, the Guardian Council corrected these bank contracts during the Imam’s lifetime and the Imam signed off on it, the leadership also signed off on it, among the authorities of our father and some gentlemen, they accepted this and some others say: This is a robbery. May God have mercy on him, the first person who said this was Mr. Ayatullah Misbah Yazdi, from the point of view of jurisprudence, it looks like mudarabah. He said that most of it is spent on construction works. I said, do you testify to this? He said yes, we were relieved.

But now people are saying to bank employees what field and what kind of system is this? The islamic government says that these deposits are correct and the banks also comply with them, but some people in the seminary say that these banks are all robbers, these problems should be solved by the research center, hold strong scientific meetings in the seminary, and from that honorable gentleman who says that it is robbery. Ask why it is abducted? Send their representative with the reason, say we want to announce your same opinion to the parliament, ending with the reason. Today is no longer the time when if a researcher says something in the seminary, it becomes the seminary’s talk, the evidence must be completely clear and we should come forward with this evidence.

In any case, this center boosts the seminary and ensures the rules, and be sure to follow it strongly.

The fourth thing is that the Jurisprudential Center of the pure Imams, peace be upon them all, are at your service, we are ready to boost discussions. The fact that now the Parlement or the Guardian Council values the research results of this series is very promising and a matter of praise, try to raise these issues more precisely and deeply and we pass strong laws at the Majlis, which will be approved when it reaches the Guardian Council. And we don’t want to see the case that the Guardian Council says is against Shari’ah (divine law), they should only consider the cases against the constitution.

I hope that God, the Blessed and Exalted, bestows his care on the entire seminary and this lslamic Republic and we can extract the dimensions of religion and show the hidden subjects of religion to the people of our society and the countries of the world. This center should not be a center that only recognizes the conformity of a law with jurisprudence and religion.

In conclusion, I suggest you use the opportunity to communicate with the inter-parliamentary union and ask the speaker of the parliament to present the products of this center or at least some of its products to the different parliaments of the world so that their representatives know what the Iranian parliament is saying. We expect the same from the judiciary. Unfortunately, it has not yet been implemented. We hope that it will be implemented during Mr. Ajei’s term, God willing, but it is more important for the legislature (Majlis) to know what laws we have for family planning, economy, education and other issues.