Social:Conduct of the wise in Shia Jurisprudence

Conduct of the wise in Shia Jurisprudence (بناء العقلاء)

The conduct of the Rational/ Wise is one of the sources to prove the authenticity of conjectural proofs (Amārāt) and to derive practical principles. For example, Usūlīs in proving the authenticity of Istishāb appeals to the conduct of rational. They also use this source in deducing issues of rulings of jurisprudence (Qawā’id Al-fiqhīyyah), as the ruling of holding (Qa'edat Al-Yad), the principle of validity (Asālat Al-Sihha), and the principle of binding in dealings (Isālat Al-luzūm). The works written in the recent centuries refer to this source while the first Fiqhī and Usūlī sources are empty from it.

Definition of conduct of rational 

Conduct is a continuous habit and custom of people and their practical method of doing or eschewing something. If the conduct is for all people it is called Conduct of the Wise and if it is specific to Muslims, then it is called Muslims' conduct (Sīrat Al-Mutashri'a). Therefore, the Conduct of the Wise is a specific behavior that rational people have in facing an event, without any difference in their time, place, culture, and religion. For example, they rely in their daily conversations on the appearance of each other's sayings without waiting for certain declarations or it is their conduct to refer to experts in the issues they do not have expertise in.

The Conduct of the Wise is different from the rulings of intellect since intellect rules on the basis of discovering real expediencies and evils, like the goodness of justice and truthfulness. However, the Conduct of the Wise is not necessarily due to observing real expediencies and evils, but it forms according to the way and behavior the rational people choose. Of course, it is possible for the Conduct of the Wise to be due to the ruling of intellect. Another difference is that the Conduct of the Wise forms after they practice it repeatedly, while the ruling of intellect is not dependent on the repetition of an action. The third difference is that intellect deals with universal issues, but the Conduct of the Wise can touch specific things as well.

Validity of the conduct of rational

Conduct of the Wise is not essentially valid because it is not a certain proof and it was mentioned before that authenticity of any conjectural proof needs to be proven by a certain one. There is no verbal proof to confirm the validity of this conduct so that Usūlīs appeal to tacit consent (Taqrīr), namely when rational people have such conduct and the law-giver was aware of that but he did not abandon it, then it implies that he agrees with this conduct. Therefore, when we see that people at the time of the prophet and Imams used to rely on the apparent meaning of the sayings but they did not reject it whereas it was possible for them to reject and abandon it and establish a new way, so we can conclude that they considered this conduct to be valid.

The conduct of the Wise is non-verbal proof so it is not permissible to appeal to its absoluteness when there is a doubt in the extent of its coverage. In other words, when we have verbal proofs and they are not specified or limited by another proof, they are universal and absolute. Thus, when we have doubt whether a specific case is included by them or not, we can appeal to the absoluteness of these verbal proofs. However, the rational proofs are not verbal so they are not absolute or universal. Hence, when we doubt if they include a specific example or not, we cannot resort to absoluteness or universality of the proof and we must suffice with a certain amount. For example, some jurists appeal to the Conduct of the Wise to prove the authenticity of Istishāb. The certain extent of this conduct is to rely on the previous state (Iatishāb) when the doubt is in resolver (Al-Shak fi Al-Rafi'), but there is doubt whether the conduct is applied when the doubt is in the requirer (Al-shak fi Al-Muqtadhī). Therefore, Istishāb is only valid in the case of doubt in the resolver which is a certain amount.

 Foundations of the authenticity of conduct of rational

There are two foundations suggested for the authenticity of the conduct of rational, each of them has different results:

First, according to the famous view, its authenticity depends on its being certainly proved to be confirmed by the law-giver. Therefore, it is in fact a Shari proof, not an intellectual one. Then, they mention the tacit approval for it namely the silence of an infallible about specific conduct discovers their ratification. To prove the approval of an infallible two processes must be used:

A. to prove this conduct was practiced at their time otherwise if the conduct is practiced later, the approval of the infallible cannot be proven. For example, generally, the scholars do not accept resorting to the Conduct of the Wise in order to prove the validity of assertion of philologists (Qaul Al-lughawī), since it has not been proven that the Conduct of the Wise in referring to the assertion of philologists about the usage and meaning of the vocabularies has been practiced at the time of Imams. Now, the question is how we can prove that conduct was practiced at that time. Shahīd Sadr suggests some possibilities here:

1. When we have doubt, we consider that conduct to be practiced at the time of Imams because it is originated from the common sense of a man and as they practice it today, it is very likely that they used to practice it before as well. For example, the Conduct of the Wise is to trust the saying of a trustworthy person. By studying this conduct we see it is because there is a high rate of discovering truth in the report of a trustworthy person and the rational people consider this amount of discovery reliable. This conduct exists today and in the past and it has not changed through generations so it shows that the conduct was practiced at the time of Imams too.

2. To refer to reliable historical narrations about the presence of conduct at the time of an infallible.

3. To study different societies and prove the existence of the conduct at the time of Imams through induction. In other words, finding conduct in different societies signifies that human being has such conduct so it has to be at the time of infallibility as well.

4. To find conduct being implicated in sayings or answers of Imams to questions.   

B. After proving the existence of the conduct at the time of an infallible, we have to prove that the infallible have not abandoned that conduct. Here, if a Hadith is found to indorse that conduct then their approval is proven, but if there is not any uttered endorsement for the conduct, many scholars believe that not finding any objection from Imams suffices because if they were not pleased with that conduct they had to reprimand and forbid it, since they are infallible and it does not suit them to be silent before what is against Sharia. And if they forbade it the report of that had to reach us because forbidding popular conduct among people that is practiced by all is so important that it could not be neglected and would be narrated by many people. Then when their objection is not reported we can conclude that they were pleased with it. It is provided that uttering their views and opposing conduct was possible for Imams and they were not excused for keeping silent as they were in the state of reservation (Taqīyyah).  

Secondly, another foundation of authenticity for the Conduct of the Wise is to return it back to the ruling of intellect by saying that this conduct discovers the ruling that intellect has. Then, by the implication between the ruling of intellect and that of Sharia, it can be concluded that the Conduct of the Wise is endorsed by Sharia. Hence, in the first foundation, the Conduct of the Wise is valid for discovering Sunnah, but in the second foundation, it discovers the ruling of intellect.

It was necessary for the first foundation to prove the popularity of the conduct at the time of the infallible, but according to the second foundation even if we know that conduct is established after the time of Imams, again we can appeal to that conduct because it discovers the ruling of intellect.

A question remains unanswered here and it is how the Conduct of the Wise discovers an intellectual ruling? It can be said: when rational people by being rational to come to choose specific conduct in their life, it has to be due to the ruling their intellect has on that issue because it is very unlikely to have people from different religions, cultures, geographies, emotions, and languages agree on specific conduct unless when it is originated from the intellect. However, this argument might not be confirmed by the facts available among the rational people, since some of their conducts are rooted in emotions, pressures, or other dynamics without any role for intellect in them.