Examining the Validity of Medical Tests in the Issues Related to Jurisprudence

Finding the relevance of medical experiments and tests to some religious orders in Islam dates back to the narrations. Since the new experimental achievements have led to the emergence of new issues in Jurisprudence (fiqh), the purpose of the present study is to elaborate on the new medical experiments according to the fiqh criteria of Imamiah (Shia) and examine the validity and acceptability of these proofs in Jurispruden ce issues, i.e. to determine the conditions and criteria for these types of tests .

Methods :

The present study is library - based and was conducted using a descriptive - analytical method. An attempt was made to examine the validity and authority of medical exp eriments and tests for fiqh issues using the Jurisprudence laws and principles and the teachings from the narrations from the perspective of Imamiah (Shia) Jurisprudence. The authors reported no conflict of interests in this study .

The tests cond ucted in the new sciences that are relevant to the Jurisprudence issues were categorized into four categories of pathology, toxicology, serology, and genetics. The views and perspectives of the contemporary Imamiah religious experts about the medical tests were presented in two general fatwas: a) authority and validity of tests if only they lead to absoluteness and science and b) general invalidity of these types of tests. In order to explain the applicability of medical experiments to religious orders as c riterion, the tests were classified into two categories: estimation - based and hypothetical. Then, their validity and scope of authority as proof were examined from the perspective of Imamiah Jurisprudence .

The conclusions of the present study c an be presented based on three general categories of data: a) Estimation tests: Validity of estimation experiments is not provable and lack of reason for validity can be considered as the reason for lack of validity; b) The validity of sensory tests is def ensible via the reasons for its validity if the issue of concern is an example of evidence and attestation and there is no better reason like the number of experimenters for the mentioned conditions; c) The validity of hypothetical tests is defensible via the reasons for validity if the issue of concern is consistent with the experts’ views. In conclusion, a single experimenter’s opinion is enough for the religious orders and there is no need for numerous views by the experimenter in sensory and hypothetica l tests .