If there is a division in the proofs of the science of principles (the present one means a division that has proceeded artificially), then the development of the proofs has no meaning. I am also inclined on the same basis; Consequently, we can no longer logically develop basic proofs. It is true that jurisprudence develops; But the variety of evidence does not happen and the evidence is the same and nothing is added to it.
Note: Hujjatul Islam wal Muslimin Reza lslami is a member of the academic board of Qum Islamic Science and Culture Research Institute. He has a history of writing many books and articles related to jurisprudence and principles, and for many years he has been considered among the high level professors of Qum seminary. I spoke with him about the status of new evidence such as the purposes of the Shari’h, new traditions, etc., to solve the problems of contemporary jurisprudence. He believes that due to the limitations of basic proofs, no other basic proofs can be added to them, but the ultimate thing that can be done is to develop and refine the existing proofs. The details of the conversation with this prof. and researcher of the field of practice in Qum are as follows:
Does the existing evidence in the knowledge of al-takafu’ principles of jurisprudence help to solve the new problems of this knowledge or is it necessary to add new evidence to that knowledge or to use some evidence more?
Prof. Islami: The first point is that the science of principles is the science of reason and implication. We consider the science of jurisprudence as the science of jurisprudence, and the science of principles is the science that explains the reason for this ruling and how to use this reason.
Another point is that in the science of principles, we have divisions for evidence. If these divisions are about limited proofs, then the development of proofs does not make sense. For instance, when I say that the reason is rational or narrative, a third category cannot be imagined for it. Or, for instance, when we say that the reason is either verbal or labial, here the third participle is not imagined. Similarly, when we say that the reason is either definite or non-definite.
Consequently, we must pay attention to the divisions of evidence in the science of principles, whether the processing of evidence in the science of principles is based on whether these proofs are obtained by induction or not? For instance, we have 5 types of proofs and if someone says that we have found new proofs over time, that new proof will be the sixth, seventh, eighth, and final category, which is the development of proofs.
But if the division in the proofs of the science of principles is a division contained in it (the present means a division that has proceeded artificially), then the development of the proofs has no meaning. I am also inclined on the same basis; Thus, we can no longer logically develop basic proofs. It is true that jurisprudence develops; But the variety of evidence does not happen and the evidence is the same and nothing is added to it.
Why must we limit the proofs of principles to reason, so that our hands are tied, instead, we can say that in principles, we discuss everything that can be evidence in jurisprudence.
Prof. Islami: The reason for this is that first of all, a rule of Kamal al-Shari’ah says that all things have a ruling, even if it is expressed in a clear way.
In addition to this rule, there is another rule that the evidence of Shari’ah is perfect. This rule says that it is impossible for you to enter into any problem and not find a reason for that problem. So, just as the Shari’ah is perfect, the evidence of the Shari’ah is also perfect.
The Shari’ah is in the stage of complete substantiate and the Mufti, as he has the complete proofs of the Shari’ah, can rule and present the proof in any issue.
These arguments are in order in principle; Sequential order and in such a way that some evidences are in the first stage, some in the second stage, etc., and if the evidences conflict with each other, there is another verdict. This logical arrangement requires that you cannot develop principles and add new evidence to existing ones.
The third point is that the development of the science of principles means discovering the scope of evidence. I will present some examples of these cases.
As for the verbal reason, we measure the appearance which relies on the situation and evidence. But we didn’t do much about the variety of clues. I focused a part on proofs in the book of rules of manifestation, and a chair was proposed and held under the title of correlative science in the science of principles, and we also had a meeting in Mashhad.
The discussion of correlative science is discussed in the science of principles; But we don’t pay attention to all the evidence and its effect completely. In the discussion of manifestation, we can still talk about application. Also, adherence to generalities, which itself is a project in an institute with the title “Efficiency of applications and generalities in solving contemporary and emerging issues” which is being investigated.
Regarding the rational reason, we can develop in the discussion of adjuncts, the discussion of the components of the antithesis, the discussion of muqaddamat al-wajib, etc. I did not develop muqaddamat al-haram as much as the Sunnis did.
In addition to these, one of the ways to understand where to develop what discussion is the symmetrical view; It means let’s see; For instance, according to their principles, the Sunni scholars paid attention to the branches of the discussion of analogy. The discussion of al-manat finding is similar to that we also have in the knowledge of the science of principles with the term tanqih al-manat. This discussion must develop its scope in our principles.
Another case: it is the real subject and the explicit subject that is taken into consideration in jurisprudence and is referred to as subjectology. Some of this thematics is related to al-manat search. For instance, he says: “Do not eat pomegranate, for it is sour” Here, the explicit subject is the pomegranate; But the meaning of the ruling is harmful. The doctor is making a ruling about every harmful thing, and because of this, the ruling can be spread and the character of the novel can be canceled or it can be made difficult.
All these discussions are manat-finding discussions, and this discussion is also under thematics (Knowledge of al-lawn al-Asfar, Qibla, Shari’i limits, etc.) which have different scopes.
There are two types of thematics: one branch is related to custom, some of which are related to general custom and some specific custom. Another branch of thematics is related to the elimination of character and revision of al-manat, which is related to your discussion that you say what issues must be developed in the science of principles?
The objectives of the Shari’ah are also related to this; Because there are lawful intentions such as intentions, goals, and al-manats that we must enter with a detailed explanation. Now, should we write a second volume on the principles of jurisprudence for the purposes of the Shari’ah because we discovered a series of proofs that were not there before? No, it is not like that, but we should develop more of these topics.
Based on what we have said, the scope of some topics must be expanded, both in terms of verbal evidence and in the case of verbal evidence (certain evidence that does not have words, such as adherence to tradition and consensus). For instance, Martyr al-Sadr has given good topics under the discussion of life. Or in the discussion of frequency, which is a positive verdict. The frequency is determined by the density of suspicion. This logic of calculation of possibilities and the logic of the density of suspicion in the science of principles have not been processed; But Shahid al-Sadr has done this and has discussed the nature of the news, the nature of the informants and the quality of the news in proving the frequency, and the same discussion is also present in the speculative news.
In the science of principles (ilm al-ausul) , it is not presented as a new reason. It is for the same reason that we say that it does not have a concrete reason or a word, which is enough, that each of them has its differences. For example, in the discussion of the life of the Muslim, is it possible to compare the life of the Muslim today with the life of the Muslim at the time of the Prophet, or can the life of the Muslim of each city and country be compared? All these have branches in the science of principles. How can we relate today’s jurists with the jurists of the time of the Prophet, that when they had a behavior, their behavior was derived from the Shari’ah, and they considered it to be Shari’ah, based on the discovery of the meaning of the ruling. For example, we see that when entering a mosque, people walk this way and that way, to enter with one foot, which is said to be a precaution for the Muslim. Or, for instance, the right hand is for honorable things, such as eating and greeting; And the left hand is reserved for lower affairs, such as purification, etc. In some cases, this law is affected by the requirements of the time.
This is also the case in the discussion of rationality. We don’t really have much intellectual independence to speak of.
The summary of the discussion is that these discussions can be developed in the science of principles and new rules and theories can be proposed in it; But a new reason is not added to the knowledge of principles.
Why shouldn’t reason rule in intellectual independence? For example, in the case of screening or weapons of mass destruction, if there is no specific text, why shouldn’t the reason be decided independently?
Prof. Islami: These cases are examples of rational rulings that are not independent.
If reason reads that the permission to use the atomic bomb is cruel, what reason has understood this? Independent or non-independent?
Prof. Islami: Depriving a rightful person of his right can be understood. For example, a child wants to take money and play with fireworks, and his father forbids him from doing so. Here, the child is entitled and wants to take possession of his possessions; But the father says that now is not in his interest. The same intellect that says: “Giving the rightful right to justice and forbidding injustice” says that it is conditional on not suffering from harassment. This ruling has many limitations and has many aspects that cannot be understood by reason. For example, lying is bad; But if the lie is for an expedient like resolving the differences between two clans, then this lie will be fine. These criteria are clear to us; But in some cases, the criterion is not clear; Like the Shari’ah says: wake up a nine-year-old child from a sweet sleep and tell him to pray, this is not oppression (some gentlemen have issued a fatwa that it is not obligatory on a nine-year-old girl because “God is not unjust to His servants.” and the gentlemen have answered, what do you know? What is injustice? This is a developmental difference between a girl and a boy that should not be looked at in small size.) Or in some cases it is said that the rulings are based on”haraj” at all, such as fasting and jihad, etc. Shall we remove them for being embarrassing?
Regarding the screening of the child who is in the mother’s womb and based on the tests, the doctor says: it should be aborted, it was a Zionist conspiracy to destroy genius children, so it is not allowed. But if we assume that this case was not a conspiracy and we are sure that the doctor’s diagnosis was correct and that this child was born with low intelligence, well, you cannot deny the miracle and the child may be taken to the shrine of al-Imam al-Rida (‘a) and may he be favored by the Prophet and his intercession. So we do not know the causes of this case. On the other side of the issue, there is a rational reason that if you don’t abort, the mother and the child will be embarrassed, and it will have to live like that for the rest of its life, and this is cruelty. Like Athanasius (murder out of pity) who say that it is cruelty, which must be said that Shari’ah does not allow; Because we are not surrounded by the dimensions of rulings and cases. It can’t be done as long as the heart is working, says Shariah.
Is there a clash or conflict between the two rulings of reason?
Prof. Islami: If there is a conflict in these cases, it is a discovery that one side of the case is not the ruling of reason; Because the rulings of reason are definite and there is no change in it, and reason does not conflict with reason (on a single subject and with all its limitations). If there is any difference, it is rational before the ruling and in fact it is deduction and refraction. In the sense that the parties to the dispute present their reasons, and in the end, reason makes a final decision, not that we have two opposing rational decisions.
This article is part of the file “New Evidence in Contemporary Jurisprudence” and will be prepared and published in collaboration with Ijtihad Network.