We know Hujjat al-Islam Mahdi Mehrizi more as one of the directors of the Dar al-Hadith Cultural and Scientific Institute, but his expertise in the field of jurisprudence is also of great interest, and in addition to managing the specialized library of jurisprudence, he is also a member of the Board of Directors of the Research Institute of Contemporary Jurisprudence. On the occasion of research week, we have talked with him about the necessity of jurisprudential research.

– What is your assessment of contemporary jurisprudence research?

First of all, I am going to give an explanation about contemporary jurisprudence research, because the definition of this term is not clear. We sometimes use contemporary with time, sometimes with thought, and sometimes with a combination of time and thought. I think the criterion should be the third option. For time alone has no properties. For instance, if we were to follow the same path from 1979, which is the standard of the contemporary period, there would be no difference in our work method. So, the criterion of contemporary jurisprudence is to accept that in the current period, thoughts and currents are being formed that we intend to talk about. Therefore, contemporary jurisprudence researches, i.e. researches that have been formed at this current stage and have found substantial differences with the past; It means new opinions, new style or new model that is different from the past.

– With this criterion, has something happened in jurisprudence that is different from the past?

In short, the answer is yes. If we consider the contemporary period from 1979 to the present day, from 1991 to the present day, since we were faced with war in the first period, there are new debates that are mostly influenced by two things; One of the challenges that the Islamic government faced. Second, as a result of the expansion of global communication, we learned about other people’s thoughts.

According to him, management of the Ahl al-Bayt jurisprudence library, what gaps do you see in this field?

I think we need outputs that are accompanied by verbal and social explanations; Like what Ayatullah Mutahhari has done in the “Issue of Hijab” or “Women’s Rights System in Islam”. It means that we should not just rely on specialized jurisprudential explanations; for new challenges have reached all levels of society and we need works with a new style that will convince people’s minds; That is, while expressing new opinions with jurisprudential style and context, it should express its theological position and social analysis in order to convince people’s minds. There is no place for such works.

– Does it mean that it is in today’s language or do you have a new model in mind?

I mean the new model; for today’s language means to express simple and heavy things. For example, in the works of Martyr Mutahhari, the religious ruling is presented in such a way that a person understands it and does not find a negative position towards the religious ruling, which I interpret as “theological-social explanations”. For instance, in the issue of hijab, he explained the jurisprudence of hijab along with its status and effects. This business is usually not taken into consideration by those who do pure jurisprudential work. While this is not the case and it is the duty of the religious scholar. When the Qur’an says, the prophet was explaining, it means he was showing the place of this ruling in people’s lives. This is a form of work and centers that do legal work should consider it.

Another approach is to identify schools. We see new opinions among today’s jurists, which the jurists themselves or those around them have not discussed to reach a school of thought. Therefore, sometimes we see that he has said the opposite in other places. Consequently, the extraction of jurisprudential schools or theories that organize scattered words is considered that this work has started, but it is very little. This approach applies to a group as well as to an individual. For instance, it should be checked what the new jurisprudential thinkers, such as Ayatullahs Sane’i, Janati, Ma’rafat, their jurisprudential model are like. Or, for example, a person like Ayatullah Sane’i himself, who in my investigation I found about 50 new rulings from him, or others who work on his works, come and explain the logic of the new rulings themselves.

– Does it mean a new principle of jurisprudence?

Now, either the new principles or the principles they have extracted; For example, let him say that I pay more attention to the verses of the Qur’an than other jurists. Or I pay attention to the interpretations of the narration or the verse and these rulings are derived from these interpretations. Third, I understand custom in this sense and base these rulings on it. It is necessary to formulate the logic of work, which we may also call a method, or a school, which accelerates the learning of that innovation, because we will no longer be faced with individual propositions.

The next issue is prioritization. We do not have priorities and it is not clear what our jurisprudential priorities are in today’s society. It should not be a criterion of people’s work, studies or personal interests; Rather, one should first go to the basic priorities and then examine the subsequent issues.

The fourth gap that I feel is that I see the place of the debate in religion as empty. I have said before that we see the place of thinking deeply in religion among foreign courses empty. We have not been careful about the relationship between different parts of religion, i.e. rules, beliefs, words, and ethics, and we have not clarified what, for example, is the relationship between jurisprudence and ethics, or ethics and transactions, etc.? We need an argumentative work about the macro approach to religion, which is sometimes called “philosophy of religion” or “religion studies”. Even the verse of Nafar emphasizes on discernment in religion and not on discernment in rulings; While the whole approach of our jurisprudence is a ruling approach.

Who do you see as the audience for these topics?

Especially in organizational business, it is necessary to pay attention to who is the target audience and for whom the output of the work is prepared? We are faced with three audience groups: first; Government for government institutions like parliament. Second: elites; Like those who want to do legal work. and third; public audience Of course, the elite sector and government institutions may be different from each other, or we may consider them as one group.

– As a final question; If we consider worship as the core of jurisprudence, how can this knowledge of worship be reconciled with today’s thought?

Some of our thoughts are based on fundamentally false beliefs. It is a wrong belief to consider jurisprudence as devotional knowledge. Jurisprudence is a human knowledge derived from the interaction of non-innocent thoughts with its sources, i.e. Qur’an and Hadith. Both in the process of formation of the Qur’an, non-innocent humans have played a role and in hadith – including hearing, writing and memorizing – non-innocent humans have played a role; And in jurisprudence, which is the product of this interaction. Therefore, we see the bold role of the non-innocent person in three places: memorizing, maintaining and interpreting the Qur’an, memorizing and maintaining and interpreting the hadith, and the third is jurisprudence itself. Therefore, saying worship or holy is a mistake that is caused by escaping criticism. The jurisprudence is respectable and not sacred. What is sacred is an aspect of the Qur’an and Sunnah that is attributed to Allah and we strive to achieve it. The discussion of the apparent and real ruling that the mullah raises in Kefayeh is also based on this, and if there is a holy matter, the real ruling is with Allah, and what we have in our hands is the apparent ruling. Therefore, the place of this question is open for humans and basically the goal is to start reasoning in humans. In Chapter al-Naml, he says: “And We have sent down the remembrance to you to explain to people what we have sent down to them, so that they may reflect.” But unfortunately, we have talked so much about worship that today they write a book titled “Refusal to think in religious culture” and say that it is not possible to be religious and think at the same time.