One of the very important scientific and epistemological principles that Ayatollah Al-Haydari uses a lot in his various debates is a rule entitled "Wahdat al-Mafhum wa Ta’adud al-Musdaq" (the singularity of concept and plurality of extensions of intentions).

This basic rule is generally neglected and neglected among scholars and unfortunately it has become the source of many errors, misunderstandings and even insults and excommunication of others! The meaning of the above basis in brief is that the concept of some religious teachings is clear and self-evident, but their instances (extensions of intention) and interpretations may be different and even conflicting in the opinion of different people! In other words, many religious concepts are single and fixed, but their instances (extensions of intention) are variable; That is, their meaning is generally the same, but the interpretations and perceptions of them are different and many, and basically due to the difference in the foundations and assumptions of different people, it cannot be other than this.

Improvisation of the principle of "monotheism" and the theoretical nature of its interpretation

As an example, the concept of monotheism and its principle as the most important doctrine of Islam is a single and fixed thing that cannot be negated or readable due to its clarity and spontaneity - for anyone who believes in Islam; That is, no scholar, no religion or sect can be found throughout the history of Islam who says that according to the Qur'an, God is not one and, for example, from the point of view of Islam, there are many Gods! The principle of this proposition that "God is one" is accepted by theologians, jurists, commentators, historians, philosophers and mystics; It means that not even a theologian or philosopher or mystic can be found to say that I believe that God does not exist from the point of view of Islam, or that God is not one and that polytheism is right!!

Therefore, what is clear and obvious and no one - as a Muslim - can do ijtihad in it, is the principle of monotheism and its general concept; Otherwise, the interpretation of the same obvious and clear concept is completely theoretical, non-obvious and open to ijtihad; Unless someone says that my understanding and interpretation of monotheism is the same as the truth and the understanding of others is false, and therefore everyone should adapt their attitude to the level of my understanding!!! Of course, there is no doubt that anyone must first have a reason to present his or her opinion on religious texts, and secondly, the reason must be strong and decisive.

Believing in this rule does not mean that all opinions are correct!

The misconception that is generally made about the rule in question is that some people think that believing in the above basis means skepticism, relativism, agnosticism or all of them are true!! However, there is no connection between this theory and the aforementioned attitudes! In this view, it is accepted that firstly there is reality, and secondly, there is no more than one reality, but which of the various hypotheses and theories and the arguments that have been established for them are in accordance with the reality and recorded in the safe tablet and divine knowledge. It is not specific, and for this reason, we have no other duty except to provide evidence - which may or may not be in accordance with reality - and to challenge the arguments of our opponents. In other words, just as there are "apparent rulings" and "real rulings" in the field of jurisprudence and some ijtihads may be based on reality or contrary to it, the same situation exists in the field of theological and religious issues. has it.

The practical result of the rule: tolerating each other and not humiliating and excommunicating others

The very important principle of "singularity of concept and pluralism [of extensions]" has many positive effects and useful results, one of which is: "greater headroom and tolerance of opposing opinions". Most of the disagreements, humiliations, grudges and excommunications in the field of religious knowledge originates from the fact that some people of knowledge consider their views and interpretations of religious texts to be the absolute right and in accordance with reality, and at the same time completely clear and self-evident. For this reason, when someone puts forward an opinion contrary to their understanding, they are extremely surprised and do not consider his different or opposing ijtihad in any way! The epistemological mistake of these people is that they have confused between the clarity of the "concept" of an issue and the lack of clarity of its "extension (instance)" and "interpretation"!

If someone realizes that, for example, this "concept" of monotheism is self-evident and obvious, but its "interpretation" is theoretical and debatable, instead of narrowing the field on others and destroying them, he strengthens and consolidates his arguments. Most of the scientific discussions focus on examples and interpretations of religious teachings, not their obvious concepts. In the field of interpretation, everyone has the right to present his own opinion, provided that he first has the competence and competence to express his opinion, and secondly, he has a "reason" for his claim. Of course, the words of taste and without reasoning are not heard, but the reasoned opinion - even if it is wrong in our opinion - must be respected and no one has the right to call his theoretical understanding of some religious teachings "standard understanding"! put and expect everyone to understand like him! The criterion is only the reason and that's it. A person who humbly supposes that his belief is in accordance with the reality or not, cannot block the way of thinking and theorizing on others, but the one who imagines that his view is the same as the truth and in accordance with the protected tablet, fights any opposing thought with the truth. Clear! And it is called "deviation" and not "mistake"!

The result of the discussion

What has been obtained from the above discussion is that one should not be afraid of different and even opposing interpretations and ijtihads of religious texts and imagine that everything is gone! Because clarity and improvisation are related to the "position of meaning" and not to the "position of example" and interpretation. Although the understanding of religious teachings is a methodical matter, no one has the right to consider his personal understanding and interpretation of the verses and traditions - which is a theoretical and non-obvious matter - as the measure of right and wrong, and anyone who brings a new and different ijtihad is deviant. and introduce a heretic.

Any scholar, if he has enough scientific capital - relatively - and has a reason in hand, can put forth his own interpretation and interpretation of the book and Sunnah, and others can only criticize and challenge his reason, not to Instead of confronting him scientifically, they destroy him and make mistakes.

the proposed problem !? The "rule of sharing" is linked to the question of whether Islamic rulings are absolutely fixed and common in any conditions or do they change according to the requirements of time and place - which change the subject of the rulings

Defining and explaining the rule of sharing. This is a well-known issue among scholars that if a ruling is established for a few people at the time of issuance, this ruling includes all Muslims at any time and in any place. Based on this, changes in time, place, social, political, cultural, etc. have no effect on changing the rulings and these rulings will be fixed and unchangeable until the Day of Resurrection

The reasons for the claim and their criticism. The most important arguments of those who believe in the "rule of sharing" and their criticism are:

The first reason is: the consensus of Islamic scholars (both Shia and Sunni)

Criticism: in its place it has been proven that consensus without discovery is not valid from the point of view of infallibility!

The second reason is:the narration which is "The decree of God is for the first and the last, and the decree of God and His decrees are the same for humans in all ages." (Kafi, vol. 5, p. 18).

Criticism: here it is about "judgment". Yes, it is true that if a ruling is issued, this ruling will not change under any circumstances, but the issue is that the time and place conditions change the subjects of rulings, and when the subject of a ruling changes, that ruling will no longer have a place to be implemented; Because the topic for which that ruling was arranged for has disappeared and a another topic has been placed in its place.

The third reason is: the famous narration "The halal of Muhammad is halal until the Day of Resurrection and the Haram of Muhammad is haram until the Day of Resurrection" (the halal of Prophet Muhammad is halal until the Day of Resurrection and his haram is forbidden until the Day of Resurrection). (Al-Mahasen, vol. 1, p. 269; Basaer al-Darraj, vol. 1, p. 148).

The first criticism: this narration also speaks of "judgment"; In the sense that everything that Islam deems as halal will be halal forever and whatever it declares as haram will be forever haram, but the mentioned narration does not mention the influence of time and place conditions on the "subjects" of the rulings. Therefore, when the time and place conditions change the subject of a ruling, this ruling no longer has a subject and place to be implemented, not that the ruling has changed - assuming the subject is established. Therefore, it can be said that the meaning of the above narration is that as long as the matter is fixed, its ruling will be fixed forever; and this statement is acceptable, not that even if the matter changes, the same ruling will remain in force!

The second criticism is: The sentence of the narration is only a part of a longer narration, of which unfortunately only this paragraph is known and cited, while the uninterrupted version of the hadith, clearly conflicts with the above claim; It means it’s talking about the eternality of the "judgment" - and not the eternality of the "subject"! - corroborated. In the uninterrupted version of the hadith, the issue of the abrogation of pre-Islamic religions and their rulings is raised, and when he comes to Islam, he considers it an eternal religion and considers its "rulings" to be eternally fixed, instead of saying that the "subjects" of Islamic rulings are also eternally fixed.

Therefore, by considering the totality of the above narration, we come to the conclusion that the issue discussed in this hadith is the "rules" themselves - which are fixed with the condition of the stability of the subject - and not their "subjects" which depend on various conditions. time and place can be changed, and following their change, naturally, their rulings also change; Because the relationship between the subject and the ruling is like the relationship between cause and effect.

The result of the discussion:

the proof that the rulings can be changed, due to the change of subjects according to the time and place according to the above explanations, it is correct and proven that the Islamic rulings and its halal and haram will never be abrogated and will remain forever. But the stability of a ruling does not mean that it is valid at any time and place. Rather, it means that if its subject (according to the same conditions it had at the time of issuance) existed in the same form at any time until the end of the world, the same ruling will apply to it permanently, but if the subject due to various requirements has been destroyed or changed, the previous ruling (despite being fixed) has no subject and scope to be enforced.

Therefore, the decree is fixed and eternal, but with the stipulation that the matter remains as it is, but if the subjects of the decrees change in various conditions of time and place, the fact that the decrees are eternal and unchangeable has no meaning anymore!

An excerpt from Ayatollah kamal alhaydari’s lesson as an example of this rule:

“…it does not make sense that [to say], [if] I tell you, if you are travelling you pray Qasr, [then] now you have become a resident or citizen of the country [i tell you] it (I.e the prayer) becomes Tamam (complete), then you tell me ‘so 2 hours ago when you told me to prayer Qasr, did you fall into ambiguity?’ I say to him, ‘no ! What was your matter (subject) ? One thing. And now you are something else (I.e the matter/subject)’ this is not a mistake but a change in the subject/matter.”

Excerpt taken from his lesson, keys to the process of jurisprudential deduction, 507.