روش‌شناسی فقه سیاسی و پیوند آن با حکمرانی دینی: بازنگری در موضوع‌شناسی و مصداق‌شناسی

Extended Abstract

Introduction and Objectives: For religious governance to remain simultaneously faithful to Islamic foundations and effective in administering society, it requires a methodical linkage between jurisprudential theory and social realities. Political fiqh, as the primary normative framework of Islamic governance, plays a pivotal role in establishing this link. However, methodological weaknesses—particularly in topic identification (mawḍūʿ-shenāsī) and case identification (maṣdāq-shenāsī)—can widen the gap between theory and practice and undermine the effectiveness of such religious governance.

The central question of this study concerns the role of topic and case identification within the methodology of political fiqh and how these two domains can contribute to producing jurisprudence suited to the needs of contemporary Islamic governance. The aim is to rethink the methodological foundations of political fiqh with a focus on these two components and clarify their role in fostering constructive interaction between jurisprudential theory and socio-political realities.



Methods: Adopting a descriptive–analytical method within the framework of the philosophy of the applied sciences (falsafeh-ye muzāf), this study draws on conceptual and foundational analyses in the literature on uṣūl al-fiqh to examine the theoretical underpinnings and methodological shortcomings of political fiqh. In addition, through a critical assessment of the seminary educational system and prevailing patterns of jurisprudential reasoning, this study identifies and explains the key challenges in topic and case identification. Based on this conceptual analysis, it offers proposals for reconnecting the methodology of political fiqh with the practical demands of religious governance.



Findings: The findings indicate that distinguishing between text-based (manṣūṣ) and non-text-based topics is essential to an effective methodological framework. In text-based topics, neglecting contextual indicators—such as rational conventions, the suitability between ruling and subject, and normative implication (inṣirāf)—may result in rigid literalism and detachment from contemporary needs. However, attention to these indicators facilitates accurate topic reconstruction and enhances the responsiveness of fiqh to modern sociopolitical issues.

Non-text-based topics, which constitute the majority of contemporary issues in political fiqh, involve complex political and social transformations. Accurate identification requires engagement with modern disciplines, particularly political science and fields such as political sociology and international relations. Reliance solely on traditional methods in this domain may distance jurisprudential reasoning from empirical realities and foster unsubstantiated analogies.

In the domain of case identification, although expert knowledge is indispensable, excluding the jurist from the process of applying principles to external realities creates a disconnect between theory and practice, leading to abstract theorization and secularization of governance practices. Juristic involvement is essential for at least two reasons: first, discerning the stronger underlying rationale (manāṭ al-aqwā) in cases of value conflict; and second, setting valid criteria for secondary titles (ʿanāwin thānawiyyah) to prevent the instrumental use of concepts such as harm, necessity, or expediency to justify actions. The findings show that insufficient attention to specialized and methodical ijtihād in these two domains risks marginalizing jurists within the governance structure and promoting practical secularism.



Conclusion: Without a methodological reconsideration of topic and case identification, political fiqh cannot effectively fulfill its strategic role in religious governance. Such reconsideration requires careful attention to temporal–spatial indicators in text-based topics, engagement with political science expertise in non-text-based topics, and active participation of jurists in case identification. Developing a robust methodology in these areas is essential for preserving the connection between Islamicity and governance efficiency and preventing theoretical–practical disjunctions and secularized administrative practices. Accordingly, seminaries should revise their curricula and strengthen interdisciplinary training to prepare jurists for emerging issues. The future of religious governance depends on such fundamental methodological rethinking.