Inherent and Accidental in Jurisprudence of Art, a methodological approach

In this article, the importance of the mozaf jurisprudence is discussed first. With the difference that, in this article mozaf jurisprudence has been revised by new methods of jurisprudential sources; provided that this revise has no implication for devastating the heritage. This new method has not been customary in previous Shiite jurisprudential literature. For instance, in this method we’ve particularized some of commons by human particularizers and we haven’t particularized the common by a particularizer which fully interpretable and we’ve performed according to the common to not commit inhuman theory. In the following, the difference in this method will be expressed by the view of making the jurisprudence common. The making common which is avoided is fully leaving the scale for common and total closure of Wisdom. Finally, it will be proved that this is a new method in looking at the sources of jurisprudence and has major differences with the making common of jurisprudence. Dealing with the special place of art in human society and proving that this issue is not a created-in-time is another case addressed in this article. According to the author, the present art is the same as the old art which has only changed its artistic style. The totality of art is a historical debate and is not dedicated to a specific time. The life of art is related to human life. In this method, when the jurisprudent considers resources and doubles with care and looks more closely at the issue finds out that these issues are not associated with the essence of art at all. Separating the essences from the accidental qualities in the jurisprudence of art is another requirement of jurisprudence of art in this method that the innovator jurisprudent should reinvestigate the heritage. In this article, we will review examples of artistic cases to explain the necessity of this method and its different outcomes. In fact, the person who takes the law to the essence must make a reason for being intrinsic.
In sculpture, if we review reasons beside historical events, we will come to the conclusion that the sculpture was forbidden since that it was a kind of polytheism because of being worshiped, and this art had been somehow a permission for propagation of polytheism. Now, at the present time, sculpture, which has nothing to do with idolatry and polytheism, its rule should change because the rule was extrinsic.
Separating the essences from the accidental qualities resolves any problem in art. Expressing the reason and philosophy of rules is an issue in which rules are made by adhering to thematic wisdom. Now, if wisdom (not the reason) of an issue changes, basically the rule must change. The final section of this paper addresses this issue and how it is inferred.