The Imam was at the peak of his scientific ability. The revolution and socio-political dimensions overshadowed his scientific dimension

 

 

Ayatullah Sayyid Mujtaba Nur Mufidi, the head of the Center for Contemporary Jurisprudence Studies, said during a speech at the Scientific Conference on Explaining the School of Imam Khumayni (may his soul rest in peace) on the topic of “Imam Khumayni’s (may his soul be sanctified) Critical Encounters with the Science of Principles in the Contemporary Era,” that a critic must have the maximum scientific abilities and capabilities. Many critics do not have such abilities, and we can clearly see this inability in their works and speeches. The Imam was at the peak of his scientific abilities and capabilities, and entered every field as a great expert and expert.

 

This teacher from outside the Qum Seminary, pointing out that there are five salient features and characteristics in Imam Khomeini’s critical confrontation, stated: Macro-viewing has never distanced the Imam from micro-viewing; we do not see this macro-view in many scholars. The second feature is that the Imam has an active process in confronting sciences and knowledge; he thinks for himself, asks questions for himself, and draws conclusions for himself. The next point is that discipline and harmony can be observed throughout his thoughts and opinions, especially in the dimension of criticism.

 

He added: Many critics pay more attention to the structure and are oblivious to the foundations. The Imam pays full attention to the foundations; sometimes he destroys the foundation of an opinion and sometimes he lays the foundations and builds a new building and structure based on those foundations. The fifth characteristic of the Imam’s critical approach is that in any knowledge, he evaluates issues according to the goal and purpose of that knowledge, and when he encounters issues that are far from the goal, purpose, and destination of that knowledge, he distances himself and reprimands the authors for focusing too much on what they should not focus on.

 

Ayatullah Nur Mufidi reminded: Some of the Imam’s criticisms and critiques are structural and others are methodological. The most important critical confrontation of the Imam with the science of principles in the current situation is that the science of principles is caught up in issues and discussions that are far from the purpose of principles. Respected scholars are aware and know that the Imam emphasizes in numerous positions, in the treatise on Ijtihad and Taqlid and in some other discussions, that the science of principles of jurisprudence is the introduction of the science of jurisprudence and an organic science, not an independent one; its goal is to discover the rules of deducing and understanding religious rulings.

 

He emphasized: Jurisprudence, which in his opinion is the law of life in this world and the hereafter, should be the goal of discovering principles and rules. Therefore, the Imam clarifies that if the discussions in the science of principles are not practical and have no effect on deducing jurisprudence, then it is useless to deal with it. What the Imam denies and criticizes is the introduction of extras into the science of principles; no one is opposed to the development of the science of principles in line with the goal for which it exists.

 

The head of the Center for Contemporary Jurisprudence Studies added: Isn’t it really time that some of these issues enter the science of principles, while this has not happened and time is spent on some issues that, according to the Imam (may Allah have mercy on him), have no role in inference. We are now facing serious challenges; challenges not only in the field of responding to the problems and dilemmas of today’s world, but even in using religious texts and sources to answer questions from the past.

 

He said: Now one of the most important challenges in understanding religious texts and texts is what has become known as hermeneutics; the methods of interpreting the text have become very different; it is about the historical nature of interpreting texts; it is about the impact of historical rules on religious texts. Some of these may have a theological aspect, but certainly prominent aspects of these are related to the science of principles.

 

Ayatullah Nur Mufidi added: Some of the Imam’s theories have the potential to enter the science of principles and be discussed. When these areas and openings are in front of us, should we address issues that have no role in inference? For example, the theory of time and space is one of the most important and original theories that I think has not been well discussed or has not been coherent and disciplined.

 

Emphasizing that the theory of expediency is truly an important theory, he stated: There is a great deal of scientific effort regarding expediency. I myself had about 70 sessions discussing the rule of expediency. It is also clear from the words of the Imam that he considers expediency to be involved not only in the field of discovering and deducing the secondary ruling or implementing and applying the secondary ruling, but also in deducing the primary ruling. How much work is there in this?! The science of principles must develop in accordance with these needs.

 

In another part of his speech regarding limiting the interference of custom in understanding religious discourses, the teacher of the Qum Seminary said: No one doubts the interference of custom in understanding religious discourses; no one says that we should abandon custom and only rely on reason. Of course, this is apart from the second axis that I mentioned, sometimes rational precisions have found their way, even in understanding religious discourses, this is apart from that axis. The Imam expanded the scope of the role of custom in understanding religious discourses.

 

He clarified: It is well-known that religious discourses are dissolved by the number of obligated individuals; the theory of dissolution is well-known; but the Imam, criticizing the theory of dissolving religious discourses by the number of obligated individuals, invented the theory of legal discourse. He says that we have two discourses; we have a personal discourse and a legal discourse. The late is the same discourse that the legislator addresses to the society and the people. The goal of public discourse is not to inspire and incite individual human beings, but rather the goal of establishing law and the will of the legislature. The fact that a significant number of people have the ability to be sent is enough for this address to be valid, even if a large number do not send it; the infidel, the disobedient, the helpless, this address cannot be addressed to them at all.

 

Ayatullah Nur Mufidi continued: The Imam has adopted the theory of legal addresses from custom; that is, he had in mind exactly the same procedure that custom had in legislating, and since he considered the religious addresses to be in accordance with customary conversations, he said that this address is not personal so that it can be dissolved by the number of obligated individuals. Then you see how much this has solved the problems; the problem of addressing the helpless, the disobedient, the infidel; on the issue of the order, all the discussions took place in order and the elders went to their feet to decide what to do about addressing the address and placing the matter next to the most important and important. This also has important effects in the social field; when a correct root is explained, it comes to the end and has those effects.

 

He reminded: In the discussion of enjoining good and forbidding evil, there is a discussion about whether the obligation of enjoining good and forbidding evil is conditional and dependent on knowledge of power or not. The Imam does not consider knowledge of the existence of power to be a condition for the obligation of enjoining good and forbidding evil. Yes, if one is certain that he cannot, this is another discussion; the gentlemen say that in the case of doubt in power, the principle of innocence applies and the obligation is removed. The Imam says: No, the obligation is not removed by doubt.

 

The head of the Center for Contemporary Jurisprudence Studies emphasized: The Imam is a thinker whose ideas, like oysters in the depths of his sea of knowledge, need to be fished out, processed, and presented. A thinker whose revolution and the socio-political dimensions of his personality cast a shadow over his scientific dimension. Of course, one should be hopeful and not despair. Although there are factors that have come together to make these scientific ideas less popular, one must tirelessly continue these efforts, especially so that these ideas can be incorporated into the science of principles in the form of rules and be a guide and a source of hope for society and the people.