The roundtable “Analysis of the Methodology of Compilation of Contemporary Jurisprudence Issues” was held on Sunday, January 3, 2024 at the Research Institute of Contemporary Jurisprudence. At the meeting, Hujjat al-Islam wa Muslimin Fallah Tafti presented his views, while Hujjat al-Islam wa al-Muslimin Piruzmand and Dr. Ahmadzadeh presented his opinions as critics.
At the start of the lecture, Hujjat al-Islam wa Al-Muslimin Durri, the secretariat of the meeting, pointed out that the principle of determining the framework of contemporary jurisprudence is the subject of discussion among scholars of this science, and said: Up to now, the network of thin issues that have been determined for some issues has been done with personal efforts. but our discussion is about group work. Our intention is not to present the network of issues of a jurisprudential chapter; Of course, this business has been proposed in some cases, such as the jurisprudence of pilgrimage or the jurisprudence of virtual networks. Rather, it means the method of accessing the network of issues.
Hujjat al-Islam wa al-Muslimin Falah Tafti started his discussion by referring to the results of examining the system of issues and listed some results of paying attention to this discussion, such as preventing repeated discussions, setting precedents, and governing the system of work. He explained: Formulating the system of problems is considered a central point in science policy-making, and l mean an arrangement that clarifies the problems of a science. Dr. Fallah Tafti, referring to the formation of the structure of science from two horizontal and vertical divisions, considered the horizontal division to be the arrangement of sciences, and the vertical arrangement to be the issues of a science, and referring to three readings from contemporary jurisprudence, he made the focus of the discussion “contemporary jurisprudence to introduce the meaning of jurisprudence that the supervisor discusses the newly created issues.
From this point of view, developing a system of problems requires prerequisites, including discovering problems that are possible in different paths. Referring to some of these methods, such as comparing with others, observing signs, checking goals, comparing with standards, reverse brainstorming, role-playing or matching, using questions, why? And using the questions how and who? He said: After obtaining the issues, he can categorize the questions into qualitative groups.
Regarding the current common patterns in the system of issues, he enumerated these issues as follows:
- Assignment template: which deals with the organization of issues based on the criteria of the assignment and includes the main issues of the assignment, oblige to or belonging to the assignment. This is how Shaykh al-Tusi divides the final zakat at the beginning.
- Division based on the external fulfillment of the task.
- Modeling the arrangement of problems in related science; Like the system of communication issues or vaccines.
- Modeling the organizational executive chart; like current citizenship jurisprudence.
- The use of logical and philosophical patterns; The pattern of four causes.
- The pattern of categories of ten
- The elements of movement.
At the end of his speech, he addressed some adaptations in the Jihad debate and stated that it may be necessary to use several models for a comprehensive review of a debate.
Dr. Piruzmand said that we should look at the civilizing jurisprudence and look for re-reading of the sources.
In the continuation of his speech, Dr. Piruzmand criticized the statements of Dr. Fallah Tafti. Referring to the importance of the discussion, he raised two main points:
The first point is that dealing with invented issues has been a current issue in jurisprudence in accordance with the times, and naturally, in the contemporary period, the aspect of responding to invented issues has become more prominent. The contemporary jurisprudence looks at a new set of issues that the jurisprudence system is facing, and that jurisprudence is the guardianship of society. That is, in the past, our jurisprudence has focused on the individual, which should continue and new issues are found for it, but what distinguishes the contemporary jurisprudence from the history of jurisprudence is the entry of the Islamic Republic into the field of civilization. The modern jurisprudence is looking for answers to new issues, but the contemporary jurisprudence is looking for problem-solving jurisprudence.
The second point of Dr. Piruzmand was dedicated to the distinction between the recognition method and its classification. Referring to the two types of knowledge topics, he said: In knowledge, we have two types: knowledge of issues by inferring texts, and knowledge by inferring objectivity. Pointing out that the conditions and objectivity were more in Dr. Fallah’s mind, he added: Of course, the inference of the texts is not based on a crude assumption, and we should look for the re-reading of the text and even the development of the sources, for example, the basis of Jihad to review. On the other hand, examining current issues is inspiring. That is, in examining the structures, one should not forget that this structure is based on a culture, and one should seek to examine and discuss that structure before entering into the examination of such a discussion.
Dr. Piruzmand also pointed to the classification of issues and said: In examining the system of issues, both horizontal and vertical discussion should be examined; But before that, the relationship between philosophy and jurisprudence should be addressed, which has already been discussed and should be investigated. It should be kept in mind that philosophical beliefs will have consequences in jurisprudence. And to what extent that philosophical foundation will answer us in the contemporary jurisprudence. The type of these divisions is based on the originality of the categories and the categorical insight into the phenomena.
Dr. Ahmadzadeh: We need teamwork
Next, Dr. Ahmadzadeh criticized Dr. Fallah Tafti’s statements. From this point of view, it is not possible to proceed individually to examine the network of issues; Because our discussion is even out of the interdisciplinary discussion and is a multidisciplinary business. Based on this, discussions will go to network and system issues, and irregulated discussion will not have much avail us. From this point of view, the deductive and inductive discussion, and how it is discussed, is also a topic of discussion. We must discuss the place of deductive and inductive discussion and the method and type of their combination. Also, we should have clearer definitions of “problem” and we should define “problem” according to our goal and make it clear that it is a “problem”; Because our issues are not static, but dynamic, and its position may change. Therefore, the priority methodology of the issues is also important.
Dr. Ahmadzadeh concluded that today’s literature must change and the methodology of contemporary jurisprudence must also be appropriate to modern science. For example, the categories of decimals must be developed and although formal logic is useful for our discussions and we need other logics such as fuzzy logic.
Dr. Ahmadzadeh then made suggestions for the progress of the discussion. Among other things, we need to convert the methodology into a model, and the business should be done as a team consisting of specialists of different knowledge. The third suggestion of Dr. Ahmadzadeh was to move towards the use of software.
In the continuation of the meeting, Dr. Fallah Tafti responded to the critics and the audience.