Note: The 67th session of the “Method on Sundays” series at the Contemporary Jurisprudence Studies Research Institute was devoted to the topic “Processes and Methods of Amending Legal Statutes in Accordance with Islamic Criteria.” In this session, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimin Dr. Seyyed ʿAbd al-Muṭallib Aḥmadzādeh, Assistant Professor in the Department of Law at Mofid University, explained the methods of legal amendment and the sources for identifying laws that require amendment. Dr. Masʿūd Emāmī and Dr. Mansūrī acted as discussants, presenting their critiques and analyses. The Q&A segment provided an opportunity to examine issues related to aligning the country’s laws with Islamic criteria and the cognitive sources thereof.
According to the official website of the Contemporary Jurisprudence Studies Research Institute, the 67th session of the “Method on Sundays” series, entitled “Processes and Methods of Amending Legal Statutes in Accordance with Islamic Criteria,” was held. This was the eighth session of the autumn term of the methodology-of-legislative-governance series based on sharʿī criteria, organized with the support of the “Development and Empowerment of Islamic Sciences” Desk of the Islamic Propagation Office and in cooperation with the “Fiqh and Law Group of the Islamic Consultative Assembly’s Research Center.”
At the beginning of the session, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimin Muḥammad Kāẓim Ḥaqqānī Fażl extended condolences on the approaching martyrdom anniversary of Haz̤rat Ṣiddīqa Ṭāhira (peace be upon her) and announced that the general theme of the “Method on Sundays” sessions for the autumn term is “Methodology and Legislative Governance Based on Islamic Criteria.”
The director of the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Fiqh described the purpose of the session as clarifying the methods for amending the country’s laws within the framework of Islamic criteria and stressed the necessity of refining these methods to achieve consistency and avoid subjective interpretations.
He further noted: “In line with this objective, the Contemporary Jurisprudence Studies Research Institute has taken the concern for methodology more seriously in the ‘Method on Sundays’ series. This term we have addressed the alignment of the country’s laws—or governmental laws and governance—with Islamic criteria. Today’s session focuses on the amendment of laws, because many statutes have been enacted and implemented over the years only to encounter new challenges later; hence the issue of legal amendment requires precise examination and scholarly analysis.”
In the main presentation, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimin Dr. Seyyed ʿAbd al-Muṭallib Aḥmadzādeh, Assistant Professor in the Department of Law at Mofid University, first clarified two possible readings of the session title: “The title can be understood in two ways: one is the amendment of previously enacted laws in accordance with Islamic criteria, and the other is the amendment of laws enacted after the Revolution. I have proceeded on the basis of the second reading.”
He then emphasized the role of legal amendment in promoting justice, judicial security, and safeguarding individual rights, and identified four key points for the interaction between sharīʿa and law: the fallibility of human-made laws, the importance of low-error sources such as Imāmī fiqh, the necessity of correct interpretation of sources in light of time and place, and their proper reflection in legal formulations.
The Assistant Professor from Mofid University added: “Article 4 of the Constitution states that all laws must conform to Islamic criteria; this indicates that Islamic criteria have a broader scope than fiqh alone, and the Guardian Council’s task is not limited to examining fiqh. Fiqh is a source of law, not the law itself.” He also quoted Dr. Emāmī Kāshānī: “In the Guardian Council we wear the spectacles of fiqh, but in the Expediency Discernment Council we do not.”
Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimin Aḥmadzādeh explained the process of legal amendment in two stages—ex ante and ex post—and stated:
- In the ex ante stage, cultural preparation and acceptance of religious values are crucial; an example is the Law on Usury-Free Banking Operations.
- In the ex post stage, sources for identifying laws needing amendment and methods of amendment are specified.
He proposed six principal bases for amending laws:
- Social necessities
- Social needs of the people
- Public interaction with the law
- Feedback from the public and experts
- Judicial rulings of courts
- Uniformity rulings of the General Board of the Supreme Court
Dr. Aḥmadzādeh identified three primary channels for legal amendment: the Islamic Consultative Assembly (Majlis), the Expediency Discernment Council, and the General Board of the Supreme Court. He added that, in addition to these three bodies, the Guardian Council, the Supreme National Security Council, the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution, and the Supreme Cyberspace Council can also play affirmative or negative roles in legal amendment.
He cited examples of successful and unsuccessful amendments, including provisions of the Civil Code concerning the age of marriage, uniformity rulings of the Supreme Court, and determination of instances of hardship and constriction, noting that differing interpretations can produce unintended consequences and require careful attention.
In the critique section, Dr. Masʿūd Emāmī, researcher in fiqh and law, began by commemorating the martyrdom days of Haz̤rat Zahrā (peace be upon her) and commending the Contemporary Jurisprudence Studies Research Institute. He observed that the qualifier “in accordance with Islamic criteria” in the session title was not clearly reflected in the presented research, and that the sources identified for recognizing laws needing amendment are not exclusive to Islamic laws but are general characteristics of legal statutes.
Dr. Emāmī reviewed the six sources mentioned by Dr. Aḥmadzādeh and explained:
- Social necessities, social needs, and public interaction with the law lack demonstrative force and merely indicate reasons for the need for amendment.
- Judicial rulings of courts and uniformity rulings of the General Board of the Supreme Court do have demonstrative force and can serve as sources of recognition.
He added that the list of sources requires completion and that additional sources—such as advisory opinions of the Legal Department of the Judiciary, the Judiciary’s Fiqh Research Center, judicial conferences, legal commentaries, scholarly articles, textbooks and lecture notes of fiqh and law professors, and consultation with judges, fuqahāʾ, and jurists—can assist in identifying laws needing amendment.
Dr. Emāmī also stressed the necessity of systematizing the amendment process, stating: “The Majlis should have a body that continuously monitors past laws and rectifies their defects.”
He then examined the channels of legal amendment and noted that, in addition to the three institutions (the Islamic Consultative Assembly, the Expediency Discernment Council, and the General Board of the Supreme Court for issuing uniformity rulings), other bodies can play affirmative or negative roles, including the Guardian Council, the Supreme National Security Council, the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution, and the Supreme Cyberspace Council. He explained that the Guardian Council can annul laws contrary to the sharīʿa or the Constitution, and the Supreme National Security Council can, in specific cases, suspend the implementation of a law.
Dr. Mansūrī, faculty member of the Law Department at the University of Isfahan, addressed the relationship between fiqh and law: “If fiqh is regarded as the expression of the Lawgiver, a law drafted on the basis of fiqh claims to discover the Lawgiver’s will, and criticizing it may be seen as opposing the ruling of the Lawgiver. Law is a political product and requires flexibility and public dialogue.” He further added: “Legislation inherently involves coercion; detailed feedback from individuals cannot be the criterion for evaluating a law—rather, acceptance of the entire legal system is what matters.”
In the Q&A section, participants raised noteworthy points, including a question about whether the criterion of Islamic criteria extends to governmental decrees and their potential conflict with fatwās, and another about the possibility of using changes in fatwās according to time and place as a cognitive source for legal amendment. The necessity of considering both the legitimacy and efficacy of laws and their cognitive sources was also highlighted.
In conclusion, Dr. Aḥmadzādeh summarized the two readings of the session title and reiterated the importance of low-error sources such as Imāmī fiqh and the need for precision in uniformity rulings of the Supreme Court. Regarding the role of other institutions, he stated: “Bodies such as the Supreme National Security Council or the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution usually abrogate or annul rather than amend. There is also disagreement concerning the Guardian Council’s authority over pre-Revolution laws.”
Through its scholarly presentation, expert critique, and interactive Q&A, the session provided a valuable opportunity for a precise analysis of the pathways for amending legal statutes in accordance with Islamic criteria and underscored the necessity of establishing independent institutions and reliable sources for legal amendment.