According to the information portal of the Research Institute for Contemporary Jurisprudential Studies, the seventy-second installment of the “Method on Sundays” series—centered on the “Methodology of Legislative Governance Based on Islamic Principles”—took place. Welcomed by researchers and actively followed by online audiences, this session marked the thirteenth meeting of the current cycle and was devoted to examining the status of custom and public satisfaction in jurisprudence-based legislation.
The session opened with Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Haqqani Fazl serving as scientific secretary. He extended congratulations on the auspicious month of Rajab and the birth anniversary of Amir al-Muʾminin (peace be upon him), underscoring the importance of addressing theoretical challenges in Islamic legislation. Among the introductory questions he highlighted were the relationship between jurisprudence and statutory law, criteria for sharia conformity, the handling of diverse fatwas, and the role of “public satisfaction” in conferring legitimacy upon laws.
As director of the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Jurisprudence, he identified public satisfaction and the influence of popular opinion in the legislative process as among the most contentious issues in Islamic lawmaking. Posing the core question, he stressed that since laws are enacted for the people, it must be determined whether public satisfaction constitutes a requisite condition for legislation.
He elaborated: “At times, public dissatisfaction may fall within the ambit of maslaha (public interest), or even emerge as an independent factor bearing on the legitimacy of laws, given that the very essence of law concerns public welfare. The fundamental question, therefore, is whether societal custom and public satisfaction can be regarded as conditions for legislation grounded in jurisprudence.”
Ayatollah Abolqasem Alidoust then expounded upon the theoretical dimensions of the topic. Clarifying the concepts of custom and the validity of public satisfaction, he emphasized the importance of persuasion, transparency, decisiveness, formality, and expediency in both legislation and enforcement. He observed: “By custom in this context, we mean the addressees of the law—those upon whom the law is imposed and who are obliged to implement it.”
The professor of advanced jurisprudence and principles at the Qom Seminary invoked verse 20 of Sūrat Fuṣṣilat and the divine practice of persuasion and transparency on the Day of Resurrection. He illustrated this through the conduct of Amir al-Muʾminin (peace be upon him) and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), stating: “Persuasion and transparency permeate the entirety of the Islamic realm.” In his view, consultation and accountability in public affairs are foundational principles of Islamic governance, necessitating attention to public satisfaction and persuasion in social and legislative processes.
He outlined the first prevailing viewpoint: some scholars maintain that public satisfaction holds no place whatsoever; were jurisprudence to accommodate it, it would cease to be jurisprudence.
As a member of the board of trustees of the Research Institute for Contemporary Jurisprudential Studies, Ayatollah Alidoust critiqued extant positions while advocating a balanced approach that accounts for the social ramifications of fatwas.
In critiquing current legislation, he cited Article 286 of the 2013 Penal Code, deeming it replete with ambiguity and lacking transparency. He noted that Amir al-Muʾminin (peace be upon him), in his epistle to Mālik al-Ashtar, transforms qualitative criteria into quantifiable conditions—a conversion of quality into quantity to render standards clear and measurable.
In conclusion, Ayatollah Alidoust stated: “I do not advocate elevating satisfaction to a principle absent sharia justification; yet satisfaction can at times alter the jurist’s perspective on evidentiary grounds, wherein the higher objectives of sharia (maqāṣid al-sharīʿa) prove instrumental.”
He further remarked that attentiveness to maqāṣid and justice in jurisprudential inference can avert misinterpretations and forestall social discontent.
During the question-and-answer segment, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Ali Nahavandi, director of the Parliament’s Islamic Research Center, commended Ayatollah Alidoust’s presentation and reaffirmed the need to prioritize public interests in legislation. He observed: “Rulings sometimes hinge on titles and designations, yet in certain instances they turn on interests and consequences. This distinction can foster development in deductive and legislative processes.” He cited labor law as an example: even when aligned with sharia, it may undermine the family structure.
Further questions addressed the necessity of considering public interests in legislation, the role of custom in the zone of indeterminacy (manṭiqat al-farāgh), potential conflicts between public satisfaction and explicit jurisprudential rulings, criteria for distinguishing sound from corrupt custom, the functions of the Guardian Council and the Expediency Discernment Council in legislation, Article 286 of the Penal Code, the status of republicanism within Islam, and the incorporation of consequences and maqāṣid in traditional jurisprudence. Concerns were also voiced regarding unenforceable sharia-based laws and the influence of certain eminent jurists’ jurisprudence on the contemporary seminary milieu.
Owing to the scope and significance of these inquiries, it was resolved to convene a dedicated follow-up session for thorough examination and comprehensive responses.