Ayatullah Muhammad Javad Fazil Lankarani, a member of Qum Seminary teachers’ community and head of the Jurisprudence Center of Pure Imams (‘a) and a member of the Board of Trustees of the Research Institute of Contemporary Jurisprudence, said at the celebration of the birth of the Holy Prophet (s) and Imam Jafar al-Sadiq (‘a) that was held in this research institute: The jurisprudence that comes from revolution, government and politics becomes contemporary. A jurist who believes that the social rules of religion are far more than the individual rules of religion.
Ayatullah Fazil Lankarani explained the position of contemporary jurisprudence and said: The growth of our science of principles is due to contemporary jurisprudence. The late in this broad form that is discussed in our fields today needs a very deep scientific planning. May our contemporary jurisprudence find the same result as the contemporary Sunni jurisprudence.
He added: If jurisprudence wants to have life, it must be contemporary, and because our jurisprudence is contemporary, it survives. If jurisprudence has continued and remained until now, it cannot be said that singleness was pure submission and jurisprudence is a human need.
The head of the Jurisprudence Center of Pure Imams (‘a) noted: Our claim and the claim of the seminaries and the claim of our jurists is that jurisprudence is one of the sciences that mankind needs. Without the jurisprudence of Ahl al-Bayt (‘a), it is not possible to examine human rights, or even the rights of all creatures.
He pointed to the influence of jurisprudence in the Islamic revolution and said: Our holy and great revolution is based on jurisprudence. Although the Imam’s mystical, philosophical and moral character was effective and no one can deny the influence of these characteristics, the main factor behind our revolution was the power of jurisprudence and the jurisprudence of the late Imam was unfortunately, the Imam’s correct view of jurisprudence has not yet been explained in seminaries.
The senior professor of Qum Seminary pointed out: Imam Khumayni brought jurisprudence out of its stooping, silence, ineffectiveness in society and isolation, and exposed wide dimensions of jurisprudence to everyone. This was the Imam’s great art. This is jurisprudence that becomes contemporary. The jurisprudence from which the revolution, government and politics emerge, the jurisprudence that the jurist believes that the social rules of religion are far more than the individual rules of religion.
Ayatullah Fazil Lankarani added: Our view is that the sending of messengers and the release of books, based on the honorable verse “so that Mankind may maintain justice”, was for the government, not that every individual wants to maintain justice. At all, there is no uprising without a government. There must be a just ruler who himself is a person of justice and justice, so that the society will also be righteous. This jurisprudence becomes contemporary. If a jurist says that there is no jurisprudence, politics and government, the claim of contemporary jurisprudence is a false claim and naturally he cannot make such a claim.
He discussed the correct division of contemporary jurisprudence and said: Today, the correct division in jurisprudence is to divide jurisprudence into individual and social. Today, we can no longer consider the subject of jurisprudence to be only the obligatory action. Today, the main topic of jurisprudence is community.
The member of the Board of Trustees of the Research Institute of Contemporary Jurisprudence explained the penetration of some deviant western individuals into the foundations of jurisprudence and said: “Unfortunately, today the issue of citizenship rights has been raised from the west and they are trying to put Islamic countries in this way.” Based on this, some claim that there is no difference between Muslims and non-believers in citizenship rights. People can appoint a non-Muslim as their chief and ruler, and they consider this as part of their citizenship rights. These words are not compatible with our religious principles. According to the light verses of the Quran, government belongs to God and those whom He appoints, and no one other than them has the right to rule over mankind.
He added: If there is no difference between a Muslim and a non-Muslim, then what is the meaning of “Antumo al-Alawun” in this noble verse 139 Al-Imran? Is this supremacy in “Antum al-Alawun” only in terms of spiritual aspects, morals and beliefs, or is it superior to non-Muslims in the field and human society? This is something that our creator mentioned, not us. This is what the Quran says. “Al-Islam Ya’lu wa La Yu’la Alaih” is also taken from this honorable verse.
Ayatullah Fazil Lankarani clarified: Is it right to say in the name of citizen’s rights that the people of Farq al-Dala can become people’s representatives or ministers? So what is the value of Islam? Where can we look and see the value of Islam? This is the main difference between Muslims and non-Muslims. We say to all religions, “Islam is the religion accepted by God, Islam is the accepted religion of God, they should come and become Muslims, we do not force them to become Muslims, they should go and do research.” But if a Christian or a Jew or a person of the book says, I want to worship God like this, then he should know what his position is in an Islamic country and system.
The professor of foreign courses at Qum Seminary said: There is no other way to recognize human rights other than the jurisprudence of Ahl al-Bayt (‘a). Citizen’s rights should be stated in their own place, the rationale should also be mentioned. At all, the religion has come to respect rights. God’s right should be respected, human rights, ruler’s right, and people’s right should be respected, but it is wrong to put an issue that is accepted by all Muslims in the scale of ijtihad and to make a difference in it and to say something new and think that it is contemporary jurisprudence. This is a deviation from jurisprudence. One of the criteria is that it is not possible to do ijtihad in necessities.
He added: In the same area of Qum, it was claimed that Imam Khumayni said, “Time and space have a way in ijtihad”, so if a ruler sees it expedient, he can say that the morning prayer should be one rakat instead of two rakats, and he can also change the time. Unfortunately, this article has been clarified. While the first thing we were taught in al-Urwa and all the jurists said is that it is not possible to do ijtihad in matters of necessity.
***********
Ayatollah Fazel Lankarani criticized the theory of the existence of the rule of dignity in jurisprudence and said: The Sunnis have built a fake rule called dignity on the basis of the masjid of the Shariah. I have an argument to prove that it is fake. Where is the rule of dignity in Shia jurisprudence? Which jurists have said that dignity is involved in falsifying rulings throughout history? Of course, he makes a fuss about the ethics of dignity. Who said that “Laqad Karmna Bani Adam” is used for inherent dignity? All these many verses in the Qur’an say that if a person becomes a disbeliever or denies the divine verses, he becomes worse than animals. So tell me, where is his inherent dignity?
He added: At a book launch meeting in Tehran, one of the gentlemen said to the present scholars, “I desperately ask you to order them to remove these rulings that are not compatible with human dignity in practical treatises.” This word is in line with the Sunni theory, which says that according to the rule of dignity, if hijab was once obligatory because it did not conflict with a woman’s dignity, but now it conflicts with a woman’s dignity, then it is obligatory. As these have a fake rule of justice. I specify the “fake rule” because we do not have something in jurisprudence called the rule of justice that would be a criterion for falsifying rulings.
Ayatollah Fazel Lankarani continued: My emphasis is to observe the framework in contemporary jurisprudence. Do not enter the necessary rules.
He went on to criticize some opinions about the lack of duty of the government regarding hijab and said: The principle of the obligation of hijab is a clear and necessary matter and it cannot be taken for granted. Recently, some people have said that we agree that the hijab cannot be put to a referendum, but we should put the mandatory implementation of the hijab to a referendum. While the duty of the Muslim ruler is to establish the religion and he must implement all the rules, “The law of our religion was commanded by Noah, and the one who brought us to you, and we commanded Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, that they should not be raised.” ِّينَ”, this is not needed It has an interpretation, it does not need fundamentals. The establishment of religion is different from the expression of religion. That is, it is necessary for the Muslim ruler to know whether or not there is an order for good and a prohibition of evil in this society. Is there prayer or not? Do people fast or not? Do they give their zakat or not? Do they wear hijab or not? Yes, no sane and pious person likes the use of coercive power, let alone that the jurist wants to give such a permission? But why do we mix these together?
The head of the jurisprudence center of Imams of Athar went on to explain other aspects of contemporary jurisprudence and said: Another necessity of contemporary jurisprudence is the separation between jurisprudence and moral traditions, and this separation has not been done. This is really a very necessary and necessary file and project. We need to separate these. In the end, what is the standard of jurisprudence? What is the criterion of ethical hadith? What is the difference between them? Do not confuse moral hadiths with jurisprudence. Sometimes on TV, some people who are not generalists and claim to have studied in the field, want to use the moral traditions in jurisprudence, this is wrong. It is a jurist and a mujtahid who can understand whether this hadith is an ethical hadith or a jurisprudential hadith.
He pointed out the necessity of holding scientific meetings at the Institute of Contemporary Jurisprudence Studies and said: Today, our field is in serious need of scientific meetings. So that unscientific thoughts are not given to people through virtual space. Words whose truth is not clear at all and has no basis and is just a suggestion that came to someone’s mind, these are published in the virtual space and confuse many minds.
In this meeting, Ayatollah Fazel Lankarani praised Ayatollah Seyyed Kazem Nurmfidi’s action in establishing a research center for contemporary jurisprudence studies and said: I must commend Ayatollah Agha Seyed Kazem Nurmfidi, the respected representative of the jurist in Golestan, for his hard work and thought and the companionship of his noble son. , the respected brother of Ayatollah Seyed Mojtabi Nurmfidi, this scientific collection was formed because the void of such collections was felt in the field. Fortunately, in these 3 years, very good steps have been taken. we will be
