Note: Futures studies (ayandeh-pajoohi), at first glance, appears to mean predicting the future; however, from another perspective, it means drawing a future that must be constructed. Regarding futures studies in the jurisprudence of upbringing, we intend the second meaning. In this regard, we conversed with Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Sayyid Farid Mowali-Zadeh, professor of advanced jurisprudence (Bahth al-Kharij) and principles of jurisprudence in the Islamic Seminary of Qom. He believes that the jurisprudence of upbringing must become family-centered to achieve growth and excellence. He also considers the jurisprudence of upbringing an indispensable discipline in the matter of upbringing, for which no rival can be conceived. The detailed exclusive interview of Contemporary Jurisprudence with this professor of advanced jurisprudence and principles of jurisprudence in the Islamic Seminary of Qom is presented below:

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What do you consider to be the most important issues facing the jurisprudence of upbringing over the next 100 years?

Mowali-Zadeh: The important point in the future of the jurisprudence of upbringing is paying attention to the role of the family in the upbringing process. The issue of the family is the main challenge between materialistic atheistic civilization and Islamic civilization. Atheistic civilization seeks to alter the natural definition of the family on one hand, and to replace the natural family on the other hand. In other words, purveyors of atheistic civilization seek to accomplish these two tasks:

1. Adding species to the nature of the family that run contrary to human primordial nature (fitrah); for instance, expanding family formation from the marital relationship between a man and a woman to sexual relations between two men or two women.

2. Creating substitutes for the natural family; that is, restricting family functions to fulfilling sexual desires or reproduction, proposing substitutes thereafter, and subsequently stripping the family of the issue of upbringing—which is the family’s most crucial function. Restricting family functions to satisfying sexual and other animal needs, white marriage (cohabitation), homosexuality, reproduction through unconventional means such as stem cells, separating family members from the family, and household pets are all examples of a global movement’s effort to sideline the family from the upbringing process.

Conversely, Islamic civilization, based on monotheistic primordial nature and the guidance of the Quran and the Ahl al-Bayt (a), must in the future address the issue of the family more than ever before—not only assigning the family a role in upbringing, but advancing with the slogan of “family-centered upbringing”; meaning the main function of the family becomes upbringing, and upbringing management is entrusted to the family, because the primary secret of upbringing is creating a peaceful environment alongside affection and love, whose core resides within the family environment.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Will the presuppositions and foundations of the jurisprudence of upbringing change over the next 100 years? In what areas do you think these changes will occur?

Mowali-Zadeh: Foundations mean a set of propositions consisting of “is-es and is-nots” that address cosmology and worldview from a macro perspective. We can express this set as thought and intellect, which constitute the infrastructure of program-based jurisprudences. The jurisprudence of upbringing is no exception to this rule. Regarding the foundations of the jurisprudence of upbringing, it must be said: as upbringing in the future moves toward family-centered upbringing, the foundations of the jurisprudence of upbringing must also pivot toward family foundations. In family-centered upbringing, we must discuss and debate family foundations. In this regard, we must pay attention to two very important points:

• First: Considering the family in terms of its independent collective identity.

• Second: Discerning the difference between affinal and consanguineous relationships and the concept of the family.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Will the method of “researching” and “resolving” issues in the jurisprudence of upbringing change over the next 100 years? How do you think these changes will manifest?

Mowali-Zadeh: The problem-solving method in the jurisprudence of upbringing must be program-centered rather than branch-centered (far’-mehbar). Thus far, we have mostly addressed issues in a branch-centered manner; meaning a passive method toward newly arising issues (masa’il mustahdasah), regarding each issue as an independent island whose ruling must be deduced. Jurists considered themselves bound to leave no new issue unanswered; hence this method is not exclusive to the contemporary period, as we witnessed it in jurists’ practice since the distant past. However, this method is minimalist and compromises the efficacy of jurisprudence in managing society; whereas to move into the future with a civilizational view of Islam, we must address issues in a program-centered manner—meaning resolving or researching an issue according to the program of jurisprudence in upbringing. Naturally, jurisprudence becoming program-centered is influenced by its foundations; that is, the nature of our thought, intellect, and worldview regarding humanity and the family can influence the jurisprudential rulings of the jurisprudence of upbringing. In other words, we must be able to present our own intellectual and ruling system in upbringing, and based on that, design the structure of a program. Merely examining the limits of a guardian’s punishment of a child from the perspective of operational (taklifi) and declaratory (wad’i) Sharia rulings in the jurisprudence of upbringing will not be useful or efficient in the future; rather, the jurisprudential perspective on punishment’s position in upbringing must be incorporated into a comprehensive program, where family-centered upbringing serves as a primary way to make the jurisprudence of upbringing program-centered.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Will jurists’ answers to issues in the jurisprudence of upbringing change over the next 100 years? In what direction do you think these changes will be?

Mowali-Zadeh: Given the shift in upbringing approach from individual-centered to family-centered, as well as changing the problem-solving method from branch-centered to program-centered, and the influence of ruling and intellectual foundations on jurisprudential deduction through intellectual system-building, answers will likewise change.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: How do you evaluate communications between jurists and education scholars over the next 100 years?

Mowali-Zadeh: Communication between jurists and education scholars in the future will trace back to initiating discussions on the intellectual foundations of upbringing; thus it will prove more fruitful. In the present situation, most challenges stem from jumping directly to problems and solutions, rarely reaching a definitive result; however, in the future, communications will become foundation-centered rather than problem-centered; hence, once foundations are clarified, we will reach more and more beneficial results in specific issues.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What proposals and solutions do you have for better resolving issues related to the jurisprudence of upbringing in the future?

Mowali-Zadeh: It appears the proposals are evident within previous answers. Making upbringing family-centered is the main proposal in this section.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What solutions do you propose to overcome challenges facing the jurisprudence of upbringing over the next hundred years?

Mowali-Zadeh: The main challenge of upbringing in the world’s future is the issue of the family. Global atheistic civilization seeks to prevent the formation of the natural family, minimize the functions of established families, and remove the family from the upbringing chain. The solution to confront this challenge is entrusting the management of individual upbringing to families. Upbringing activities of centers and institutions outside the family—such as schools, universities, mosques, religious centers, and cultural and athletic associations—must all occur with family participation and under family management. Demanding upbringing from families and expecting them to pursue upbringing also leads to family consolidation, achieving results at the opposite pole of atheistic civilization.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What disciplines represent current and future rivals of jurisprudence in resolving upbringing problems in Islamic society?

Mowali-Zadeh: It appears jurisprudence possesses no rival or substitute in the realm of upbringing; because jurisprudence is a discipline that cannot be supplanted by Islamic human sciences in the sphere of upbringing; rather, setting jurisprudence aside from the sphere of upbringing will cause numerous contradictions for the individual undergoing upbringing. One of the main differences between Islamic human sciences and non-Islamic human sciences lies in intellectual foundations. Now, if Islamic human sciences are formulated based on Islamic foundations, will it cause setting aside the jurisprudence of upbringing? In response we say: No; the jurisprudence of upbringing alongside Islamic human sciences of upbringing holds its own special position. Therefore, it should not be said that in the presence of the jurisprudence of upbringing, we have no need to formulate Islamic human sciences in the sphere of upbringing.