Note: The issue of the efficacy of jurisprudence in confronting social transformations and governance requirements is among the most vital concerns of contemporary jurisprudence. In the latest scientific session of the Research Institute of Contemporary Jurisprudence Studies, alongside proposing a model for redesigning the structure of the science of jurisprudence, the relationship between jurisprudence and governance, the challenges of legislative jurisprudence, and the necessity of methodical transformation in principles of jurisprudence (Usul al-Fiqh) were analyzed and critiqued.

According to the information center of the Research Institute of Contemporary Jurisprudence Studies, the 281st scientific session of this research institute titled “Governance of the Science of Jurisprudence Proportionate to Societal Needs (The Desired Structure of Contemporary Jurisprudence)” was held under the auspices of the Department of the Foundations of Contemporary Jurisprudence on the afternoon of Sunday, February 22, 2026.

In this session, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Sayyid Mohammad-Razi Asef Agah Ashkevari, member of the Department of the Foundations of Contemporary Jurisprudence, proposed a theory regarding the governance of the science of jurisprudence, emphasizing that the current structure of jurisprudence is insufficient to respond to the diverse needs of contemporary society.

At the beginning of his remarks, defining governance, he stated: “In my chosen definition, governance is the method of participatory application of power across three levels: state, institutions, and the people; that is, the distribution of power among actors to achieve a common goal.”

He considered the goal of governance to be “the establishment of religion and the mobilization of resources toward its realization,” and articulating the concept of “governance of science,” added: “If we consider science to be a social institution comprising professors, researchers, curricula, and structures of knowledge production, then science becomes directable and guided, and consequently, possesses governability.”

Focus of the Session on the Structure of the Science of Jurisprudence

Ashkevari, pointing out that the governance of the science of jurisprudence encompasses numerous domains, specified that this session focuses on the “structure of the science of jurisprudence.” In his view, the structure of the science of jurisprudence is “the manner of arranging and organizing the components of a science based on a rational and coherent connection to achieve the goals of the science of jurisprudence.”

According to this member of the Department of the Foundations of Contemporary Jurisprudence, an independent research project identified and evaluated approximately 40 types of jurisprudential structures within Shi’i and Sunni traditions; however, the primary question is which structure can respond to the current needs of society.

The Theory of Tri-Structural Jurisprudence

The most significant part of Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Asef Agah’s address was the presentation of the theory of “the tri-structural nature of jurisprudence.” According to him, these three structures consist of:

• Argumentative Jurisprudence (Fiqh-e Istidlali) (for producing and deepening jurisprudential knowledge),

• Fatwa-Based Jurisprudence (Fiqh-e Fatwa’i) (for guiding the practical actions of duty-bound individuals [mukallafun]),

• Legislative Jurisprudence (Fiqh-e Taqnin-i) (for administering society and lawmaking).

In this regard, he specified: “Mono-structural jurisprudence cannot function. Here, jurisprudence requires at least three types of structure; if we remain mono-structural, we apparently cannot fulfill the needs.”

He explained: “The first stage is the deduction of the Sharia ruling (istinbat-e hukm-e shar’i), which is realized in argumentative jurisprudence; but the product of this stage can branch into two streams: fatwa-based jurisprudence for individual guidance of the duty-bound, and legislative jurisprudence for social governance.”

Critique of the Current Structure of Manuals of Practical Rulings

In another part of his speech, the member of the Department of the Foundations of Contemporary Jurisprudence pointed to the gap between certain jurisprudential texts and modern societal needs, stating: “Existing manuals of practical rulings (resalah-ha-ye ‘amaliyyah) are not designed proportionately to the lifestyle, occupation, and interests of today’s duty-bound individuals; their terminology and structure mostly belong to several decades ago and fail to establish effective communication with today’s audience.”

Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Ashkevari also addressed the weakness of legislative jurisprudence, adding: “We can realize societal administration—which is among the missions of jurisprudence—only when our legislative jurisprudence is efficient and possesses a coherent legal structure.”

Proposed New Structure for Argumentative Jurisprudence

Continuing his presentation, this researcher in contemporary jurisprudence articulated his proposed model for the structure of argumentative jurisprudence based on “human relationships,” stating that jurisprudence should be organized around four main axes: relationship with God, relationship with oneself, relationship with others, and relationship with nature.

According to him, numerous specialized branches can be derived from this classification, such as political jurisprudence, economic jurisprudence, cultural jurisprudence, environmental jurisprudence, international jurisprudence, civilizational jurisprudence, health jurisprudence, spiritual jurisprudence, and other specialized branches.

Citing the jurisprudential rule “For every event, there is a ruling” (Li-kulli waqi’atin hukm), he emphasized: “Jurisprudence is not exclusive to bodily actions (af’al-e javarihi); internal actions (af’al-e javanahi), such as mental, psychological, and spiritual actions, also fall within the domain of jurisprudence.”

Critique of the Tri-Structural Theory: From the Relationship Between Jurisprudence and Governance to the Challenges of Legislative Jurisprudence

Continuing the session, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mohammad-Reza Fallah Tafti, serving as the critic, while appreciating the presentation of the tri-structural theory, referred to Imam Khomeini’s “Charter of the Clergy” (Manshur-e Ruhaniyyat), emphasizing the dynamism of jurisprudence and the role of time and place in ijtihad.

Reading an excerpt from this charter, he recalled: “Government, in the view of a true mujtahid, is the practical philosophy of all jurisprudence across all aspects of human life… Jurisprudence is the real and complete theory for managing man and society from the cradle to the grave.”

Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Fallah concurrently raised questions regarding the relationship between “jurisprudence” and “governance,” stating: “Do all domains into which jurisprudence enters also fall under the category of governance? It appears that certain domains, such as personal privacy or certain internal actions, do not necessarily fall under governance, whereas jurisprudence holds an opinion regarding them.”

He characterized the relationship between jurisprudence and governance in certain instances as “general and particular in some respects” (‘am-m va khass-e min wajh), adding: “If not all components of jurisprudence fall under governance, can one speak of the governance of the science of jurisprudence in a unified manner?”

Conditions for Realizing Governance: Common Goal and Specified Actors

Continuing his critique, referring to the offered definition of governance as the “participatory application of power,” he considered two conditions necessary for its realization:

• The existence of a common goal among stakeholders,

• Clear identification of actors and the boundaries of their roles.

He asked: “In the real arena of jurisprudence, does a common goal exist between proponents of minimal jurisprudence and maximal jurisprudence upon which one can speak of governance?”

He also raised ambiguities regarding the concept of “partnership” in the jurisprudential sphere—which is grounded in the servant-master (‘abd-mowla) relationship—stating that the position of the people, institutions, and state in this model requires more precise articulation.

The Challenge of Legislative Jurisprudence and Transformation in the Principles of Jurisprudence

In another part of his critique, the critic considered the division of jurisprudence into argumentative, fatwa-based, and legislative to be a matter for reflection, stating: “If legislative jurisprudence means the production of law, do the existing principles of jurisprudence (Usul al-Fiqh) possess the capacity for such a transformation? In legislative systems, expediency (maslahat) and expert opinions from the humanities hold a clear standing; is this standing defined to the same extent in our jurisprudence?”

Furthermore, raising the question of “the needs of which society” serve as the basis for designing the new structure, he emphasized that the proposed structure must clarify its relationship with various societies—whether possessing a government or lacking one.

Supplementary Critiques: The Relationship Between Structure and Governance

Continuing the session, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Haqani Fazl, Director of the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Jurisprudence, raising questions regarding the direct relationship between “governance” and the “structure of science,” stated: “If we were not to have governance, would the proposed structure change? The exact connection between this structure and governance remained unclear to me.”

He also considered the threefold division of jurisprudence to require further explanation, saying: “Legislative jurisprudence is also grounded in argument, and a fatwa is the output of that very argumentative jurisprudence. Therefore, it must be clarified what distinction this division specifically addresses.”

The Presenter’s Response: Focus on the Governance of the Science of Jurisprudence

In the concluding section of the session, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Ashkevari, responding to the critiques, emphasized: “Our discussion is not governance in an absolute sense, but specifically the governance of the science of jurisprudence; and among the broad topics of the governance of science, we have focused purely on one axis, namely the structure of the science of jurisprudence.”

Differentiating between “political governance” and “governance of science,” he stated that the structure of jurisprudential knowledge is one of the components of the governance of the science of jurisprudence, and the goal of the tri-structural theory is the more efficient organization of production, transformation, and application of jurisprudential knowledge at individual and social levels.

Regarding legislative jurisprudence, Ashkevari explained: “Legislative jurisprudence is sometimes a branch of jurisprudence and sometimes an approach. In this approach, the product of argumentative jurisprudence can, in addition to a fatwa, be organized in the form of law for societal administration.”

Furthermore, emphasizing the necessity of completing and refining the principles of jurisprudence (Usul al-Fiqh) proportionate to social transformations, he added: “Transformation in jurisprudence must be rule-bound and within the framework of intellect (‘aql) and Sharia, not based on personal taste.”

Summary of the Session

In his final summary, the scientific secretary of the session, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Dr. Ali Sharifi, emphasizing the necessity of continuing such theoretical discussions, stated: “Scientific dialogues of this kind can lay the groundwork for the gradual evolution of contemporary jurisprudential theories in the realm of governance and the articulation of the optimal structure for the science of jurisprudence.” He added: “The scientific sessions of the Research Institute of Contemporary Jurisprudence Studies are held with the aim of expanding the theoretical foundations of contemporary jurisprudence and providing methodical answers to newly emerging issues.” He also stressed the necessity of rethinking the structure of the science of jurisprudence and designing a model proportionate to the individual and social needs of contemporary society.