09 July 2019 - 22:31
News ID: 445920
The faculty member of the Research Center for Islamic Culture and Thought:
Imam Jafar Sadiq had a significant role to preserve the Judicial and legal Independence of Shia.

RNA - Mahmood Hekmatnia, the faculty member of the Research Center for Islamic Culture and Thought said, “With regard to the intellectual and rational discussions held especially in the final years of Umayyads, and then at the beginning of the rule of Abbasids’ Caliphate, Abu Hanifa’s school managed to extend its influence among the people. Abu Hanifa founded his rationalistic school based on the requirements of the rational arguments and established the school of the verdict. He was a well-known and prominent figure, and upon the establishment of the Abbasid Caliphate, they found him apposite for the highest judicial position and thus proposed him to be installed as the chief of justice to head the judicial system. It shows that Abu Hanfia owned a high social position and was widely known.”

He added, “Abu Hanfia’s system is the system of the verdict. Regarding what mentioned, i.e. if we consider the establishment of two judicial systems of Umayyads and Abbasids as the first item, i.e. non-centralised and centralised systems, in the second position, there will be some essential laws that are almost the verdict-based, and according to Abu Hanifa’s school, such laws are superior and prevalent: Imam Sadiq (AS) dealt with these issues both. Although this system had an advantage, it had some shortcomings. The advantage of Abu Hanifa’s system was its putting aside the narrative-orientation of Umayyads, and changed the reliance on appearance. Though it was an advantage, Abu Hanifa’s jurisprudential system is not discipline-oriented in terms of being based on verdicts, and the main concern here is that the verdict system is possible to provide some interpretations of the Heavenly revealed text through the pass of time, the interpretations that are highly likely to change or ruin the legal system of Islam. What mentioned are the advantage and disadvantage of this system”.

He also announced, “The judicial system of the Umayyads was void of such threats. As each city or country had its own judicial system, and there was not such judicial solidarity and unity, i.e. if a verdict was to be executed, it was not regarded as a national law. Such differences enabled Shiites and followers of Imam Sadiq and Baqir (AS) to be present in the jurisdiction of their own judicial systems. However, when the centralised judicial system is to be established, it is good that such a system homogenises the regulations and creates a unity of judicial procedures, yet if the unity of judicial procedure has some inappropriate contents, it will be very dangerous; therefore, Imam Sadiq (AS) showed reactions to both cases. Regarding the first case, he struggles with the verdict-based system of Abu Hanifa, and he implicitly and explicitly impugned Abu Hanifa’s methodology. Even in some cases, he explicitly expressed his disapproval of this system.”

Mahmood Hekmatnia then stated, “For instance, the judgement over a simple lease case by a judge was reported to Imam Sadiq (AS), however as the judge had based his judgement on verdict and comparison, it enraged Imam Sadiq (AS) and said, “If Heaven deprives his servants of his blessings because of this verdict, it is no wrong”. Imam Sadiq’s stance is not confined only to the said case. However, he impugns this method of understanding/interpretation, as if this method prevailed, the jurisprudential and legal systems of Islam would dissolve. Therefore, he strongly stood against this method. Thus, Imam shows a response to the verdict-based method of understanding, as in the era of Abbasid Caliphate a doubt was raised that such understandings/interpretations might prevail within the judicial system, and a theoretical interpretation could possibly turn into an official interpretation.”

He pointed out, “As a result, at the beginning of the Abbasid dynasty, Imam Sadiq (AS) confronted the problem that such theoretical and studying-related interpretations might make the basis of the official system, or as it is expressed nowadays, the jurisprudential views might turn into the law of the state. If it turned to the law of the state, i.e. whether three components of Hanafi view incorporated into the official judicial system and judicial unity system, all the opposing jurisprudences would be obliterated. As, when people refer to the judicial system, they attend to the verdict of the judge and see either the government approves of the issued verdict or not. The support of the government for the judicial verdict encourages people to accept the jurisprudence whose verdicts are eventually guaranteed by the government to come into effect. If it happened at that time, definitely, Shia would face multiple problems. As the Shiites also had some problems and needed a judicial system to resolve their problems; and they had to refer to a centralised judicial system, the system that preferred a specific verdict, and as a result, this system of government, in fact, would rule the social life of the Shiites, and it would lead to the omission of the social ground of the Shiite jurisprudence.”

To be Continued

Rasa News Agency


Send comment
Please type in your comments in English.
The comments that contain insults or libel to individuals, ethnicities, or contradictions with the laws of the country and religious teachings will not be disclosed