According to the Research Institute of Contemporary Jurisprudence Studies, the 82nd session of “Methodology Sundays” was dedicated to elucidating the jurisprudential foundations and Ijtihadi methodology of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Sayyid Mojtaba Khamenei. Held on April 12, 2026, with the aim of systematically understanding his foundations, this session emphasized the importance of examining available works and His Eminence’s lectures.

At the outset, the scientific secretary of the session, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mohammad-Kazem Haqani-Fazl, wishing victory for the warriors of Islam over the American-Zionist enemy, conveyed greetings to the pure soul of the martyred leader of the Islamic Revolution and the martyrs of the Resistance Front, praying for their elevated ranks and divine favor.

The Director of the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Jurisprudence, pointing to the strategic importance of understanding the Supreme Leader’s foundations, stated: “Given his position in determining the macro-level strategies of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the profound impact of the revolutionary leaders’ jurisprudential thoughts on the scientific atmosphere of the seminaries, examining his Ijtihadi methodology is an indispensable necessity for researchers.”

The scientific secretary added: “Considering that a major portion of his scientific works will be published in the future, examining the limited existing texts and analyzing his lectures paves the way for a systematic understanding of his jurisprudential foundations and assessing their relation to the Shi’i jurisprudential heritage.”

Subsequently, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mahdi Geramipour, professor of advanced seminary levels in Qom and faculty member at the University of Qom, delivered his presentation. According to his statements, the primary sources used included approximately six to seven years of the Supreme Leader’s lectures on the principles of jurisprudence (Usul al-Fiqh). In addition, two jurisprudential topics—namely ritual purity and impurity of wine (taharat va najasat-e khamr) and financial/physical ability for Hajj (istita’at)—discussed by the Master (referring to the Supreme Leader) were examined in this research.

The professor of advanced seminary levels in Qom articulated the process of Ijtihad in the thought of Ayatollah Sayyid Mojtaba Hosseini Khamenei (damat barakatuh) across ten main steps: confronting the issue, problem identification, evidence retrieval, contextual evidence retrieval, validation of proofs, textual inference from proofs (istizhar), semantic reconciliation and conflict resolution (jam’-e dalali), assessing contextual preferences, recourse to practical principles (asl-e ‘amali), and issuing the chosen opinion (ra’y-e mukhtar).

Hujjat al-Islam Geramipour, pointing to the similarity between His Eminence’s Ijtihadi style and that of his teacher, Ayatollah Khamenei (may he rest in peace), analyzed the two jurisprudential discussions of “purity and impurity of wine” and “ability for Hajj.” In the discussion on wine, the stages of precise formulation of the issue, sourcing, validation, conceptual analysis, subject identification, textual inference (istizhar), ruling identification, conflict management, and preference of the chosen theory were traversed. The structure of this discussion comprised narrations of impurity, narrations of purity, modes of reconciliation between conflicting narrations, and the articulation of the chosen opinion.

According to him, Ijtihad in these works means transforming an ambiguous issue into a refined and reasoned ruling, which includes delineating the crux of the dispute, extracting sources, refining narrations, analyzing concepts and subjects, evaluating implications, and managing conflicts to achieve the chosen opinion through the balancing of proofs. This process is not merely finding a ruling, but involves precise clarification of the issue, identification of points of disagreement, recognition of valid proofs, and deep comprehension of texts.

Continuing the session, Hujjat al-Islam Geramipour articulated the “Methodology of Validation of Narrations” in the Supreme Leader’s jurisprudential thought, describing it as a “multi-layered,” “synthetic,” and “biographical-bibliographical (rijali-fihristi)” approach operating beyond traditional chain-of-transmission analyses.

Outstanding Features of the Validation System

• Composite System Beyond Biographical Reliability (Wathaqat-e Rijali): In this school, the validity of a narration is not restricted solely to the reliability of individual transmitters in the chain of transmission (sanad); rather, it is the cumulative outcome of numerous components such as the reliability of the narrator, the validity of the narration itself, the validity of the book, the fame of the manuscript copy, the acceptance of early companions (talaqqi-ye ashab), the standing of the narration in authoritative sources, and the capacity to compensate for chain weakness through external contextual evidence.

• Separation of Validity of “Narrator,” “Narration,” and “Book”: One of the key points is distinguishing between the personal reliability of an individual and the validity of their text or book. For instance, in this method, describing a book or narration as “authentic” (sahih) goes beyond the individual reliability of the narrator, expressing certainty regarding its issuance, even if minor weaknesses exist along the chain of transmission.

• Synthesis of Biographical (Rijali) and Bibliographical (Fihristi) Sources: Validation in this style does not rely solely on books of Rijal; bibliographical sources (Fihrist) play an effective role. For example, the validity of a narrator’s traditions is tied not only to his personal reliability, but also to his status as “owner of a famous book” and the paths of transmission (turuq) of his books by earlier traditionists, indicating a transfer of validity from the level of “person” to the level of “written heritage.”

• Rejection of a Binary (Authentic vs. Weak) View of Narrations: In this jurisprudential constellation, narrations are not divided merely into two absolute categories of valid and invalid; rather, they possess varying degrees of validity. According to the faculty member at the University of Qom, a chain of transmission may be valid “in itself” (fi nafsihi), but when conflicting with stronger narrations, its validity diminishes or it is set aside (tarh-e rivayat).

• Reliance on the “Refinement of Early Scholars” (Palayesh-e Qudama’): This method places special reliance on the evaluations of earlier traditionists as a reassuring criterion. For example, the non-exclusion of a narration in the book Nawadir al-Hikmah by Ibn al-Walid is treated as contextual proof of that narration’s validity—a subject demonstrating the importance of trusting the evaluations of the early traditionist heritage alongside chain-of-transmission analysis.

Hujjat al-Islam Geramipour emphasized that this multi-layered and comprehensive approach elevates validation from a single-criterion process into a precise and flexible system playing a vital role in producing jurisprudential theories within the Supreme Leader’s Ijtihadi school.

Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Geramipour then proceeded to articulate the precise dimensions of “textual inference” (istizhar) in extracting meanings from religious texts, particularly narrations. Pointing to the foundational standing of this skill in the process of Ijtihad, while praising the methodology of Martyr Sayyid Mohammad-Baqir al-Sadr, he emphasized the strength and comprehensiveness of the Supreme Leader’s inferential method.

The Inferential Approach in the Supreme Leader’s Jurisprudential System

Citing an analysis of His Eminence’s lectures on topics such as the “purity and impurity of wine,” Hujjat al-Islam Geramipour described his method of textual inference (istizhar) not as a superficial reading of literal phrasing, but as a “multi-stage, methodical, and deep” process. The key stages of this method include:

• Precise Subject Identification: The first step is distinguishing between the “real subject of the narration” and the “subject of the jurisprudential issue.” This precise boundary prevents the misapplication of narrations to issues.

• Extraction of Primary Apparent Meaning: Extracting the apparent and initial meaning of the narration as a point of departure.

• Analysis of Contextual Evidence (Verbal and Situational): Considering the circumstances of issuance (shara’it-e sudur) and linguistic context to arrive at the intended meaning.

• Utilizing the Suitability of “Ruling and Subject” (Munasabat-e Hukm va Mowzu’): Analyzing the relationship between ruling and subject to better comprehend the Lawgiver’s intent.

• The Principle of “Negation of Futility” (Nafy-e Laghviyyat): Ensuring that an independent meaning is considered for every component of the narration’s text, and that the infallible’s (a) speech is free from any absurdity.

• Evaluating Competing Probabilities: Proposing and evaluating various interpretations and assessing the reasoning strength of each to reach the strongest textual inference (istizhar-e aqwa).

• Comprehensiveness (Avoiding Cherry-Picking): Contrary to restricted approaches, the Supreme Leader emphasizes maximal gathering of narrations in a given chapter. This method, structurally similar to Martyr Sadr’s practice in comprehensively examining reports across jurisprudential chapters (such as the chapter on ghina and music), leads to a reasoned and well-rounded textual inference.

Emphasis on the Continuation of the Ijtihadi Tradition

Invoking the methodology of Martyr Sadr—who, through mastery of language, literary taste, and a social outlook on the biography of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them), brought religion into the text of life—Hujjat al-Islam Geramipour recalled that the Supreme Leader’s Ijtihadi school, utilizing these very scientific precisions, strives to reconstruct the practical model of jurisprudence for contemporary needs through precise and systematic text comprehension. This methodical approach guarantees the preservation of Shi’i jurisprudential heritage while responding to newly emerging challenges.

Continuing, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Geramipour summarized the key points of the Supreme Leader’s Ijtihadi methodology, emphasizing seven main axes and outstanding strengths of this approach. This summary presents a clear picture of precision, comprehensiveness, and the spirit of innovation in His Eminence’s process of jurisprudential deduction (istinbat).

Seven Pillars of the Ijtihadi Methodology

• Precise Formulation of the Point of Contention (Tahrir-e Daqiq-e Mahall-e Niza’): The first and perhaps most critical step in deduction is the precise and transparent determination of the subject of disagreement. This approach, clearly visible in discussions such as “wine” and “ability for Hajj,” prevents debate deviation and waste of time.

• Exhaustive Survey of the Chapter and Non-Selective View of Proofs: Contrary to selective methods, the Supreme Leader emphasizes maximal and systematic gathering of all proofs related to a jurisprudential chapter. This comprehensiveness provides a solid foundation for deduction.

• Systematic Separation of Chain and Implication Analysis: A classical seminary approach wherein the chain of narrations is meticulously examined first, followed by analyzing their implications. This separation prevents topic confusion and guarantees result validity.

• Innovative Combination of Biographical Evaluation (Rijal) and Bibliographical Index (Fihrist): Synthesizing Rijal knowledge and bibliographical index compilation, while making the process more complex, leads to greater analytical precision and increases the probability of evaluations matching reality. Though outwardly more difficult, this method brings us closer to the truth.

• Strength in Implication Analysis and Composite Textual Inference: The ability to deeply comprehend meanings and extract multi-layered concepts from texts is one of the most brilliant aspects of His Eminence’s methodology.

• Comprehensive Examination of Competing Probabilities (Avoiding Straw Man Arguments): In this method, instead of confronting pre-fabricated weak arguments (straw man fallacy), all competing probabilities and interpretations are seriously examined and evaluated.

• Skill in Conflict Engineering (Manandasi-ye Ta’aruz): A rare capability in creating interaction and reconciliation between narrations that apparently conflict with one another stands as one of the Supreme Leader’s scientific masterpieces.

Methodological Innovations in Usul al-Fiqh and Independence of Judgment

Concluding his remarks, Hujjat al-Islam Geramipour pointed to the Supreme Leader’s fundamental innovations in Usul al-Fiqh, particularly regarding “multiplicity of rulings” (ta’addud-e hukm), emphasizing his independence of judgment alongside deep respect for the scientific heritage of past scholars. This approach, clearly evident in His Eminence’s foundational books, demonstrates the dynamism and vitality of Shi’i jurisprudence.

It is worth noting that His Eminence’s non-acceptance of the ritual impurity of wine is not due to laxity, but is the result of a “disciplined caution” stemming from this very precise and comprehensive methodology.

In the 82nd “Methodology Sundays” session, Hujjat al-Islam Geramipour presented a comprehensive and methodical picture examining the “Ijtihadi Methodology of the Supreme Leader,” which holds significance across various dimensions and opens a new window toward a deeper understanding of the jurisprudential and scientific foundations of the leader of the Islamic Republic system.

This presentation, which commenced with the synthesis of biographical evaluation (rijal) and bibliographical index (fihrist) sources, addressed the rejection of a binary (authentic vs. weak) view of narrations, reliance on the refinement of early scholars (qudama’), and the articulation of the dimensions of textual inference (istizhar).